Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

zdo

How Would a Chimpanzee (or Monkey) Trade?

Recommended Posts

How would a chimpanzee (or monkey) trade?

Would s/he have the same biases as humans (patterns and tendencies like keeping losers and cutting winners, etc)?

 

Maybe this has been asked and answered elsewhere - don't know...

would love to hear from any resident behavioral psychs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting question, Zdo. A major difference between humans and animals, including monkeys, is in the symbolic use of language. Cutting-edge psychology is now learning that our mind's analytical properties (e.g., the ability to compare and contrast, evaluate, plan, etc) is great for building things like the information superhighway, rocket ships, smart bombs, fuel effiecent cars, and better mouse traps. Argueably, most things that the human mind applies itself to "outside of the skin," so to speak, has advanced the species. When we start applying the same mental abilities to ourselves, however, things can break down.

 

It is easy to imagine that if we we locked in a room, we could use our mental powers to find the solution to get ourselves out. We could, for example, open a window and jump out. Too, far to jump? Then call our mate on the cell phone. Battery dead? Then we could shout out the window at passersby for assistance, etc, ect, ect. The mind has no problem coming up with possibile solutions. It's very, very good at that. Perhaps too good.

 

When, for example, we compare ourselves with others and find ourselves coming up short (e.g,, not as pretty, not as good a trader, more fat than, have less hair than, etc) and feel bad, or we think about the last losing trade we had and project that into the future for the next trade and hestitate on pulling the trigger, our mind is actually working against us. Even though it feels true and right, we aren't always well-served by what our mind is telling us. Have you ever had this experience: You get in a long trade and it shows a little profit. Your mind says, "Hey, take the profit. Don't be a smuck and give it all back, just take your profit now." So you listen to what your mind says and you exit. Price continues to rally and makes new highs. And, what is your mind saying to you now? "Why didn't you stay in that trade? It was a perfectly good trade! Look at all the money you left on the table!" etc, etc. So here's the question: which was the truth? Unfortunately, traders stuck in the loss aversion/disposition effect and cut winners short see both as true.

 

As good as our mind is in problem-solving and other analytical activities, when applied to ourselves it often causes suffering and results in not only inappropriate behaviors, but in a restriction of our behavioral repertoire -- we limit our responses and options. This has enormous implications.

 

The minds of monkeys and other animals don't work this way, mainly because they don't use language. Think about this for a moment: how many animals have you known or heard of that committed suicide? I'll wager not one. But in the human realm there are many. We are now thinking that the act of suicide is the mind turned against itself in a problem-solving way in extremis.

 

Behavioral psychologists have studied animal behavior and learned many useful things. For example, teach an animal to press a level to recieve food, and it will quickly learn the task. Stop giving food when the lever is pressed and the animal quickly figures out the effort no longer produces results and so it stops pressing the level. Humans will do the same in similar rewarded tasks. Here's where there is a difference: Teach the animal to press the lever and every so often give it the reward of food. Like before, it learns and will do the task. Stop giving the food and the animal quickly figures out it is no longer being rewarded and it soon stops the task. Humans take much, much longer to stop.

 

It's called an intermittent schedule of reinforcement. Casinos know this and program the slots to "reward" players on such a schedule. They know that when reinforced just a little, people will continue to play and play and play. It's great for the casino; not so good for the player. Likely, the culprit is the mind telling the player, "Hey, XX losses in a row, you're due for a hit" or some such nonsense. And, by the way, this is the real reason animals are not allowed to gamble :)

 

This is the main difficulty with traders moving their stop and giving the trade "just a little more room." When it worked out a time or two earlier, the trader was reinforced for a poor trading behavior. The behavior avoided the pain of loss and gave an immediate gratification. So even though the trader knows it is a bad move, it will take him or her a long time and many losses to correct that behavior because of that highly reinforcing experience. If the trader is honest and candid, he or she will tell you that they discounted a basic axiom of trading because they thought (i.e., their mind was telling them) that it would be better to move their stop to avoid the loss.

 

Animals certainly respond to punishment and aversive consequences. If, for example, they were given a shock every time their trade was a loser, they wouldn't be trading long unless the shock was relatively mild and the rewards for the win were a lot larger than the pain. They don't relate to money, and I can't remember if there have been animal studies that were able to produce effective reinforcement with non-natural reinforcers (money is a non-natural reinforcer; food is a natural reinforcer).

 

I think you could probably teach a monkey to trade a couple of basic setups. As long as you reward it with something it likes every time there is a win, you would probably have a good trading machine. Because it doesn't use language like we do and, therefore, it doesn't evaluate itself as a loser in the context of a loss, it wouldn't get flustered at the losses or begin restricting or altering it's behavior. It would just wait for the next set up and be looking for that next banana.

 

So, let me know if you have a monkey you want to train ...

 

Eiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
So, let me know if you have a monkey you want to train ...

 

Eiger

 

One or two of the monkeys by nature and/or conditioning became focused on results and the implications of those results. By all indications, they are healthy, motivated monkeys, but are caught in a ‘do to have’ mentality trap when a ‘do to do’ orientation would be more adaptive. With the subjective implications of their results further complicating things, these monkeys are also in conflict about the wealth gained from a seemingly disproportionately small amount of work effort. Their trainers understand the importance of focus on process during deliberate practice, but with these monkeys the background threads of results and conflicts about those results hamper the monkeys’ trading at least 2-3 days a week. All the other monkeys appear to be able to strictly focus on process and be free of conflicts about ‘serendipitous’ affluence. The trainers have tried rational reasoning with these monkeys. The monkeys looked sincerely into their eyes and nodded Yes – but nothing changed. What are all the factors at work here? What can be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.