Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About muddyglass

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN


  • Location
    new york
  • Occupation
    math professor
  • Interests
    dressing up like a bat and beating up criminals
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,953 profile views
  1. i don't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes, but when i do, i don't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes properly as if i don't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes on a regular basis, but when i do, the "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes turn out to be pretty confusing which is why i don't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes, but when i do, i get some practice telling "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes, so that next time i won't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes as if i don't always tell "i don't always ______, but when i do ______" jokes.
  2. oh, it's pretty easy to shift your eyes back and forth. here, take a look: *eyes shift rapidly back and forth* for pedagogical purposes, i'll demonstrate it again, but a little slower this time to enhance learning: *eyes shift slowly back and forth*
  3. project pitchfork - "omega alpha"
  4. i'm sorry you're in this situation. you deserve better than a womanizing husband. there are no children in the picture and you're financially secure, so one of the only things your husband can provide is love and he doesn't seem to be offering even that much. you don't owe him anything.
  5. no alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs.
  6. i'm going to write a book on how to write books about how to make money in the stock market. i'm going to be rich. ah, didn't mean to leave out the fees paid to the brokers. one must never forget that they are the real winners in all this as people churn their portfolios. that reading of the emotional states in the pit turned out to be quite instrumental to some of the traders' strategies. there were some under-educated traders who relied on street smarts to make them competitive in trading. interestingly, one of the commodity futures traders featured in the documentary was unable to make the switch to online trading because he was missing those emotional cues. he made fun of the traders who relied on numbers and calculations because they were too slow to trade on instinct in the pit like he did, but unfortunately technology ultimately caught up with him and he just couldn't adapt. also, interestingly, this same trader was able to make money while some of the college-educated folks he was competing against were wiped out. the pits were more of a level playing field compared to the more quantitative arena of online trading.
  7. thanks! i've added the pring book to my amazon watchlist. don't want to buy it yet and will patiently wait for the price to drop further, just like in value investing. i'm totally going to candle stick all the triangles with my head and shoulders while riding the elliot wave! the voice of god decrees it so. thanks for the offer, but i think i'll be happy with just the book that eclipsed recommended above. it seems to be fairly comprehensive. i don't plan on trying to master all the patterns themselves in order to trade on these patterns. instead, just getting a familiarity with the common ideas and vocabulary used by the technicians should be enough for my purposes. plus, i don't even plan on studying this material any time soon. usually i just prepare ahead of time in how to effectively pursue a certain direction and come back to it later on if it becomes more necessary. yes, this makes perfect sense. i think many investors pursue this approach, putting a relatively small amount of their money in something considered highly risky and perhaps to the point of gambling, while allocating the rest of their money in something more solid and requiring less maintenance. it seems the successful traders are no different. even at the bogleheads forum, the gathering place of the most devout indexers online, a majority of the folks there (around 60%) own individual stocks according to a recent poll. some use a small percentage of their money to buy individual stocks when things make sense since no one really believes the market is 100% efficient all the time. the teaching and writing books approach seems to be pretty common. often, someone develops a technique to make money and then sells it at a hefty price tag instead of using that original technique to make money, probably because the original technique does not scale up any further. a good example of this is timothy sykes in the area of penny stocks. penny stocks really can't absorb giant pools of money, running into the same problems as over-investment in legitimate small-cap stocks, so sykes instead sells information about penny stocks at ludicrous prices (i believe some of his material costs over $5,000). naive people will think that the $5,000+ is a small price to pay to become a penny stock millionaire just like sykes, so they end up joining in, getting his newsletter tips, etc. if you look at the situation from the outside, it's clear that sykes has essentially created his own pump and dump army and that many of the people in it will have effectively paid for the "privilege" to cannibalize one another. they will also have a hard time getting out of the trap because of the sunk cost fallacy. it's a little sad. successful day traders who dramatically grow their accounts on a consistent basis, year after year, do exist, but are very very rare. 95% of day traders end up failing, and in this zero sum game these losers are the ones who provide for the gains of the few winners. the other day, i was watching a documentary on commodity futures traders called "the pit" and the situation is not really much different there. the vast majority, over 90%, of the futures traders were losing long-term, while a small minority won. yet, each day the traders all return to battle each other in the pit. as of today, these commodity trading pits have all closed and commodity futures trading has moved to the electronic arena online. the game remains the same though, with the majority lining the pockets of the few. getting the average joes into the market through things like trading individual stocks or options or futures contracts is one thing. getting the average joes into the market through index funds is quite another. passive indexing can scale up to accommodate a large amount of money and is probably the most favorable strategy when it comes to scalability. it's based on something real going on long-term with the underlying companies instead of speculating on market fluctuations, and the average joes should get a piece of the pie. if there are not enough sellers at any given moment, the price of shares will rise; someone will sell when the price is high enough. if there are not enough buyers at any given moment, the price of shares will fall; someone will buy when the price is low enough. there will always be buyers and sellers stepping in at the right price points because the underlying companies as a whole have value. the situation cannot deviate too far from the fundamentals long-term since such extreme deviations will give active investors opportunities to profit and money will turn away from indexing and toward these successful active strategies in these scenarios. the active investors will be the ones setting the prices for the most part and as mentioned earlier in this thread, i don't think there will ever be a time when active investors will vanish as a whole so long as capitalism still exists. there are mechanisms built into the market that ensure people will want to engage in active investing and we won't reach 100% of invested money being indexed. the failure of those particular mechanisms will imply the world is ready to go past capitalism, in which case none of this will matter any more. note that the wealthiest people at the top will be benefiting from the stock market much more than the average joes. the wealth inequality that's built into capitalism will be highlighted when most people are indexing. getting more people to understand the stock market and the relative ease of making money slowly from stocks by indexing will only bring greater attention and awareness to this issue.
  8. ah, it's probably related to some technical analysis that's widely known to the day traders. yeah, no need to go into details on that. i have my doubts on technical analysis and it's largely ridiculed in the investment literature that i normally read. however, it might be prudent to have at least one technical analysis book in my arsenal. one of my students who majored in economics once said that he didn't believe in technical analysis either, but he was going to study it just because there are enough people out there who do believe it and make trades using its principles. whether something is sound or not, if enough people do it, it will start to manifest itself in the market to some extent. in value investing, the revered books are benjamin graham's "the intelligent investor" and "security analysis" (with dodd). i'll also throw in "value investing: from graham to buffett and beyond" by bruce greenwald, et al. as a very useful modern book on value investing that goes beyond what graham was doing, and probably a better place to start than reading graham himself, in my opinion. what's a corresponding list of technical analysis books, with both the classics and some modern advances? what happens when accounts get larger? you mentioned your buddy with the roughly $50,000 account and you mentioned that a lot of the professional traders you've encountered work with accounts that are $100,000 or smaller. what happens to these folks when they grow their money but don't make use of compounding? what do they do then, keep taking out the winnings? i guess one approach would be to do what anton kreil did and just work for an investment bank, trading a bigger pool of someone else's money. what about the successful small fish who don't want to go down that road? i know we've been through this in previous posts, but it still boggles my mind that the trading account sizes stay so small over time. by comparison, the passive indexing strategy can cross the $50,000 or $100,000 marks fairly easily and without significant mental stress, from my own experiences. it was said in humor, but i actually do want to see the guys on the street invested in the market, albeit via index funds. many in the working class get paid wages and don't really benefit from the growth of the companies themselves. by owning shares of cheap broad-based index funds, they would be able to receive the benefits that their collective labor helped create. and it takes no special knowledge at all to be a part of this, nor would it require much time for upkeep and maintenance. the socialists have spoken of the public ownership of the means of production, and indexing might be the bloodless ironic manner in which that goal is attained. time will tell.
  9. hmm, are you saying that when a retail trader wants to put in a trade, he should not just place the order at a desired price and leave the computer alone? what would one do instead, keep watch and place the order only when the market comes down to that price? i had in mind something like the broker manipulating a slightly larger spread to try to benefit a little more off of the successful traders. front running might disrupt the market itself and cause the trader's method to fail, but skimming off a little bit more in the spread seems like it might always work so long as the trader remains ignorant that it's happening. if the original trader's method could be figured out by observing his trades and the results, then i could also imagine the broker just performing that strategy himself going forward. from the original trader's perspective, it would look like his method just stopped working as effectively as in the past, which happens naturally anyway. he might be none the wiser that it was his broker who stole it. of course, the method would have to be pretty solid in order for the broker to potentially risk losing out on commissions from this trader in the future. the name of the game seems to be to get traders to churn their portfolios as rapidly as possible in order to win on commissions. (as a side remark, all this talk of trading lately got me to put a couple of value stocks on my watchlist again, seeing if they'll fall even further to a more attractive price. this is surely a sign that the stock market is about to crash. )
  10. the principle of supply and demand applies if the underlying assets are of relatively comparable quality, but stem graduates are not a commodity. the argument is that american stem graduates are not of relatively comparable quality and this is why companies have to tap into foreign markets to even meet demand. there's both a stem surplus (counting all stem graduates) as well as a stem crisis (counting only good stem graduates), depending on how you count the numbers. some of those who graduate with stem degrees barely know stem. the benefits of stem, and of college in general, were oversold and it attracted too many students who were not right for it, yet were able to push through with a mediocre record and corresponding lack of skills. if there were a lack of computer science graduates overall, you'd see more companies willing to hire people straight out of college and train them, out of necessity. as it stands today, companies can fight over quality instead.
  11. in the past, i've done some odd jobs on the side: tutoring, seo writing, playing video games to sell virtual items, etc. i'm currently considering spending a small amount of time dog walking and dog sitting on the side. i don't really need the money, but just like the idea of playing with dogs as a job.
  12. no, i don't think those making lower wages are apes that constantly drool on themselves. you have misinterpreted my words. i also agree with you that a college degree does not necessarily imply intelligence or talent. i work in higher education and teach some students who don't really deserve the status that comes with a degree. students need to be judged on their individual merits and frankly some of them will just try to skate by and minimally pass everything, yet will probably end up getting the degree in time. the president of my college also likes to quote statistics showing that mediocre students from higher income backgrounds are much more likely to obtain a college degree than the excellent "a" students who come from lower income families. this is a systemic problem. college, in america, is not governed by meritocracy. heck, we still have legacy admissions at some schools here. some european countries provide access to higher education for all regardless of socioeconomic status and america is just backwards by comparison. i appreciate the people who put in long hours working shitty jobs that actually get things done. my parents did not go to college and worked long hours in a restaurant. my grandfathers worked long hours as cooks and janitors. capitalism is not fair and there are some folks who make a lot of money essentially gambling in the financial markets for a living, while others who do real work get to collect the scraps. there's a myth that being greedy will make everything magically better for all by the invisible hand of the free market as if it were a deity. sometimes people really are just burdened with unfortunate circumstances that don't get fixed over the course of a lifetime. they will have to do the best that they can with the cards they've been dealt while the world slowly progresses forward. the links you provided show that a lot of stem jobs pay well. i don't disagree with that. you can make good money in stem if you're good at it. i also think stem is the best way to go with respect to the whole package of financial compensation and making a positive difference in society. the question is how many students who graduated with stem degrees actually get to work in those nice stem jobs? this paper suggests that as of a few years ago, the data shows only about half of those with stem degrees went on to work in stem jobs. the paper specifically points out that this is true even in computer science. the data also shows that employers hire guest workers from other countries for stem jobs despite the fact that half of the homegrown stem graduates are available. why do you think that's the case?
  13. you have to pick topics that you're interested in. when you're deeply engaged by a subject, you'll find that time flies as you're reading. also, you could make it a little game to push yourself to read further once you've started a book. i sometimes look at how many pages are remaining in a chapter, see that it's only 20 pages for example, and then push myself to just knock out the rest of the chapter since there are only so few pages left. reading newspapers, online or physical, will also get you in the habit of regular reading and building your vocabulary. you could also find a list of books recommended by someone you respect and use that to push you along in your reading. for example, one day i'll go through the entire u.s. marine corps commandant's professional reading list. it's also easy to find motivation to read when you're working toward a goal. figure out what you would like to do, then come up with a list of books that will help you reach that goal. for example, planning for retirement would be a worthy goal. a little bit of googling as well as recommendations on amazon.com would quickly lead to a suitable list of books.
  14. eagleseven is right that stem degrees are overly pursued and there is a surplus of folks with degrees in stem, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. you're right that you can find lucrative work with a stem degree and it's worth pursuing, provided you're good. a lot of folks pursue stem, are not very good at it, and end up with a degree but are lacking in talent or skills. a few years ago, i was at a conference where one of the presenters gave this opinion from business' perspective. they could always use more stem folks who actually know what they're doing. generally speaking, the foreign workers are cheaper to hire and know what they're doing, whereas some of their american counterparts want more money and know less. the market is just doing its thing. your own experience with indian software developers is part of that pattern. overall, our schools are too lenient on students and let them get away with murder, but this will cost them in the end and the teachers/professors should be tougher for the students' own good. the type of jobs eagleseven mentioned can be very lucrative, but they also take a huge toll on one's body and physical comfort. a friend of mine works at a sewage treatment plant and makes more than i do, and rightly so for the hard work that he's doing. however, such work pays well for a good reason and not everyone can accept the downsides. also, i wouldn't denigrate people for taking pride in the $14.65 per hour jobs. it's almost twice the minimum wage and people are just trying to make an honest living, providing for themselves and their families as their circumstances allow. you and i see much higher compensation by comparison working in stem, but remember that some of those in finance could easily laugh at our peasant salaries too. there are trade-offs all across the board.
  15. funny and gross at the same time!