seberbach

While this insight is not professional, as in "psychologist", my paid for as well as amateur work in applying genetic and other optimization algorithms to trading strategies has offered an interesting insight. While it is quite anecdotal when applied to psychology (explain, predict, control of human behavior) it is similar. The context is that we accept that humans have optimized themselves in certain ways using genetic algorithms as part of their methods of self-development, "learning", or evolution. Another element of context is that it is commonly accepted that evolutionary optimizing algorithms should be constrained to be "robust", meaning that variance of parameter values should minimally cause "fitness" to drop precipitously. I have made the observation that optimization of trading strategies, which software can be written to do, and traders of all stripes have done by playing the trading game since they first traded in love, war, commerce, politics or religion, etc. causes an observable effect. That effect is that optimizing the aggregation of maximum profit in the shortest time, (instant gratification?) particularly with too complex a parameter set, not only invites a reversal of fortune in a very short time in the future, but in observing a map of profit versus location in parameter space we often observe that maximum profits are a very short "distance" from maximum losses. The implication is that "trying too hard" will bring one to a point of being closer to danger of making a small mistake. That closeness of the best and the worst may be the result of over optimizing by either a digital computer algorithm or a biological computer algorithm. I have found (statistically, analytically) that applying constraints (moderation) to the digital computing case and using fitness goals balanced over many dimensions (a well defined comprehensive trading plan comes to mind) helps prevent trading strategies from self destructing. Those disciplines may also help prevent people from "self-destructing". I certainly am not a thoroughly studied expert on this, but I think it is a doorway to much future study and enlightenment. My own observations are just a discovery of great (to me) interest which I do not see much written about as yet (concerning trading strategy design capability in retail trading software) compared to what I think might remain yet to be discovered when it is pursued further. This may not apply to all kinds of optimizations, but I do believe it applies to adaptive chaotic competitive survival game scenarios like "real life" in many of its amazing varieties as well as in trading in the markets. To excel in achievement can involve a cost of greater risk of (self) destruction. To excel moderately in many dimensions can be less costly risk-wise than being top alpha dog in primarily one way such as rapid gains of monetary wealth. When people grow older and more experienced, they often grow to understand this better. Additionally, as people grow in experience, their perception of the time dimension changes, and they have a longer term viewpoint (historical data in memory) about optimizing present and future gratification and quality of life in more ways than when they were younger.

If you know he makes over "7 figures", call it "warp 7", it is simply common sense that you also know he does not need your money in order to mentor you, if he really wants to mentor you. If he does not really want to mentor you, he is really not the right choice of mentor for you.

I wish to take exception to Dude's opinion, not to disagree with it. That "No mentor....can ever install the drive to really want to be successful at this - which is what is needed." Just my opinion, but it has for a long time been important to me when I think of trying to pay my "debt" by passing along gifts to others like my own mentors gifted to me in the past. You might have really meant that many who are called mentors are actually not mentors in a strict sense of the word. I believe that people have passion, much of which which is latent, not yet switched on. Not only can a Mentor "instill" the drive and passion needed to succeed, if a person does not positively influence or reinforce that miracle, whether it is manifest or latent, within another person, he or she really is not being a Mentor. If somebody says they had a mentor who did not bestow some special power beyond just ordinary skill and knowledge, they really mean that teacher was not really a mentor for that particular somebody. There must be a certain special mental, almost telepathic two-way exchange, or "chemistry" between two persons which goes beyond transferring just facts and ideas. What also needs to be "transferred" is "will", the desire and motivation to experience even in the face of discouragement or impatience. If the transferee has strong will, that will needs reinforcement and encouragement, not shortcuts or dogma. The mentor needs ability to kindle that will, drive, and passion if it is dampened. When you are really mentored you feel it. If you remember a teacher years ago in school who you still believe made a significant positive influence on your eventual path through life, that teacher was also a Mentor. The same applies to certain memorable people you may have worked with in the past, or are working with in the present, or in the future. What distinguishes them is that you can feel they want YOU to share in the benefits of their experience. Another way to explain it is to start within the context that wisdom comes from experience. A Mentor is able to influence and help other people to willingly and intentionally partake of experiences which will give them wisdom, and experiences which will guard them from perils due to lack of wisdom. If "mentoring" happens to you, you will remember and be thankful you knew those persons who did that for you, and if you wish to be a mentor, you will try to be one of those persons somebody remembers for that gift. IMHO that is how Mentors are "chosen".