Problem Mind and Internet Discussion

[Predictor 11]

I've participated in many discussions on various forums over the internet. And, I've found an interesting dynamic which is that a large group of people are programmed to find problems versus finding solutions.

 

For example, I could post nearly anything of value or not and a certain group of people would look for problems. I believe this is because people are generally programmed/conditioned to find problems.

 

I've also noticed other types of patterned responses and behaviors when studying (reviewing) comments posted on articles. One thing that people seem to be conditioned to do is to attempt to win at arguments or to appear smart.

 

One reason I moved away from discussion groups was because I recognized the way that people were programmed which wasn't conducive to the creative mindset.

 

Let's just think about how people can interact to any post or discussion

 

1. The Problem Finder

The problem finder is programmed to find a problem. This type of person believes it is their job/duty to the find the problem. Solutions don't matter. I'd say most engineering/scientific types of people are programmed this way. The problem finder typically stays on subject and may bring up relevant points.

 

2. The Instigator/attacker/challenger

The instigator type is rather prevalent. The instigator/challenger type is typically looking for a fight but may make some limited attempt to appear to be interested in the subject but is more interested in attacking someone else. These people typically believe it is their job to expose others or may be driven by their own internal idea (i.e traders lose money or that technical analysis doesn't work etc).

 

3. The Non Informational Reply

 

This is a reply type that is not informational, off subject, etc.

 

4. The Interrupter

 

The interrupter type will try to steer a conversation in any number of directions to avoid conflict. This type of is almost as bad as type #2 in terms of harming creative discussion. But, this type is very important when dealing with a type 2 person.

 

The question is how can we drive internet discussions away from type 1-4 responses toward a better response type? Where we define better as more productive.. Type 2 and Type 4 are generally disruptive response patterns. Type 3 responses aren't really meaningful. Type 1 responses can be useful but often will lead to Type 2 responses.

 

A Type 5 response is the best response but very rare..

 

5. The Synthesizer

 

The type 5 response is the synthesizer response which will take some elements from a post and add other elements to progress the discussion productively.

--

http://themarketpredictor.com

Edited July 29, 2012 by Predictor

[SIUYA 11]

Interesting post...

 

Maybe you need all to make a discussion a discussion.

Otherwise you can fall into the other problems of group think.

As part of furthering the discussion - as this does not appear to be one where by you are looking for a solution.....

Could I make some thoughts.

 

1. The Problem Finder

 

and maybe there in lies the key - phrasing things as a problem requiring a solution, rather than a discussion is a good start. Maybe not everything requires a solution, maybe its just their to promote free thinking brainstorming, or to illicit personal experiences.

 

 

2. The Instigator/attacker/challenger

yes, the problem children.....unfortunately some people are just plain twats. Constructive chellengers should be welcomed, and I think the key is - keep an open mind.

 

3. The Non Informational Reply

 

often good to break up the process if getting sidetracked, injects humour or maybe seen a different tack.

 

4. The Interrupter

 

as you note, often required for the discussion, and part of the dynamic.

 

A Type 5 response is the best response but very rare..

 

5. The Synthesizer

 

but, hang on are you looking for a discussion or a solution to a problem?

 

................

all too often the question/discussion/original idea might be coming from the wrong angle.....it may not be the fault of the participants, but that the wrong question is asked.

[Predictor 11]

What I am suggesting is that the dynamics in discussions often break down along 2 lines:

 

1. Competitive -> Antagonistic (extreme form of competitiveness, maladaptive)

2. Collaborative -> Synergistic (best form of collaboration, productive)

 

A good example, I've noticed that when I've tried to engage other vendors here in discussion, the response has been primarily competitive. They see that I offer a few things for sale and immediately perceive me as a threat and someone to "one up". This type of behavior arise from a perception of scarcity, i.e. scarce resources or potential consumers. I was surprised by this because selling educational products is only a small part of what I do.

 

However, I'm not immune to the scarcity principle either in that I'm reluctant to share my insights into the market even relatively trivial ones. Partially, I recognize that many traders haven't did the work to even discover trivial truths. This can be seen as competitive relationship among other traders. I apply the scarcity principle to some of my ideas and things I've learned about the market.

 

The question is how can we move discussions in this forum way from competitive/antagonistic forms into collaborative/synergistic forms? What makes a community more synergistic vs scarcity driven?

[steve46 12]

Okay, there are some good ideas presented....however collaboration works best when the people collaborating have something of substance to share...and they do so without having a hidden agenda.

 

When that isn't the case, or as in this case when the original poster is actually trolling for customers, then the proposed collaboration is more often the intro to a marketing plan

 

"Originally Posted by Predictor »

I use volume profiles extensively. I developed a method to do this... in fact one can read more. I may write an article on some of these ideas in the future. Most probably don't understand the VP except those who really studied it.. away from books and such. "

 

In my view if the gentleman had given this a bit more thought and perhaps provided something of substance PRIOR to this disguised advertisment, I would be less skeptical...but he decided to go the other way...suggesting that he MAY do something of substance in the undetermined future......lol..

 

and of course when I point this out I assume that there's going to be a personal attack so lets get that out of the way....first, I don't teach retail customers....already posted that several times...I don't sell mentorships, books articles, room memberships, etc...I work with professionals sent to me by their employers...and folks who know me here, know that I have posted and continue to post subtance that folks can use as a basis for advancing their understanding without having to spend money...that just leaves those who got their feeling hurt because they were on the wrong end of the dialogue....I can deal with that....

 

Good luck

Edited July 29, 2012 by steve46

[Predictor 11]

Steve46, I'm not interested in attacking you. I don't have a scarcity mindset when it comes to my resources. In reflecting, I do think your reply may fall into the instigator category. Remember, the instigator category is one in which the the reply feigns an interest in the original topic but uses that feigned interest to launch a character attack.

 

Seve46, I think you are jumping to conclusions about my motivations, as well. I don't have any educational product out where I share the information about how to use volume profile. I have only shared it in my newsletter where I offered the equivalent of almost 1-1 mentoring. I don't believe I have any links up on blog offering that newsletter at this time -- I have more important projects. I'm certainly not promoting that product because I don't want any subscribers at this time. My motivations in sharing more were brought about by requests from the members in that forum and if you read my posts closely enough, I believe I shared a great a deal.

 

Steve46, also, I don't see why you feel compelled to mention now in multiple threads that "you don't teach retail customers, etc, etc" unless your intention in mentioning that is to generate some interest in your training. We would never know that you offered training if you didn't keep mentioning it. I am a trader and I do offer a few educational products, and I've always made that clear. I think that was important in my case because I wrote articles and have a blog where others can learn more. But, in your case, it does seem trite that you mention it because frankly I wouldn't know and nobody else would know either unless it was one of your "institutional clients" who probably doesn't read this forum. So, I think regardless of what you intended, your behavior does give a certain strong negative impression that you may actually be looking for customers (and that your behavior falls into the classical competitor mindset that we're discussing).

 

I'd like to redirect the conversation back toward how we can make the forum more collaborative. One factor is certainly the value that the contributor is likely to receive in return and the cost to the contributor. I am more likely to share my knowledge with a smaller group of traders because I know it is unlikely to cost me whereas it is more possible that educating a larger group of traders might cost me. Likewise, I am more likely to share with a group of stronger contributors who are offering strong content and can likely introduce something new to the conversation then with weak contributors who aren't likely to introduce something new into the mix. For me, I have never claimed my primary motivation was to help others, as many other vendors have claimed. My motivation has always been about improving my own performance, and I find that sharing can help me to do that.

 

---

Blog - The Market Predictor

Edited July 29, 2012 by Predictor

[steve46 12]

so in this reply you take the opportunity to let us know that now you offer one on one mentoring....nice job....isn't that the motto of every good salesperson (keep selling)....

 

I am loving this...

 

Well thats it for me folks....and for those who may be offended (there's always someone who is)....I do apologize....and by all means tiger, go right back into your sales pitch....

 

Good luck folks.

[Predictor 11]

Steve46, you are following the the instigator/competitor role perfectly that I identified. I think it is obvious to anyone reading this, as well. I spent a lot of time in my last post explaining why your accusations were completely false, and I'm not going to repeat all of those. I want to say I've no problem with being identified as a trader who provides his expert knowledge for a fee. But, the truth is that right now I'm working on a project that is far more important to me then mentoring or producing my newsletter and so I don't have time to produce those and am not seeking any clients/customers/etc! This is 100% the truth.. believe it or not. Even one of the admins here knows this.. lol

 

You are free to stay around "tiger" because this thread is all about people like you and how we can create a better atmosphere.

----

Back to the topic, I've identified a few distinct features of the collaborative/competitive mindset for sharing information

 

* Size of group

- Smaller groups seem to encourage greater collaboration while larger groups tends to devolve into non productive competitive relationships

* Individual strength of group members. I believe that traders who have the ability to provide 'strong contribution' should attract other strong contributors.

- There is this idea the strong attract strong.

* Classification of group members

- It is clear that many vendors here classify me as a threat. While, I don't consider myself similar to any of the other vendors here, it is clear that similar 'types' may gravitate toward competition over collaboration especially those who have "scarcity mindset". Likewise, as a trader, I am more likely to see other traders as threats/competitors.

 

We also have to think about the way that forums are structured. Anonymity has both benefits and detriments. The negative is that it can make people much more nasty then they would ever attempt to be in front of your face. A benefit is that it does offer some protection against the stalkers that are out there.

 

Forums are structured to encourage everyone to participate. But, does this really make sense? I've already identified that only a small percentage of responses are Type 5 responses. Does everyone really need to be heard? Perhaps a thread starter should be able to downvote responses such as to make them 'invisible' instead of bothering to reply to them and likewise "upvote" the most valuable responses to make them prominent. I am thinking here.

 

What does it take to move the discussions to the highest efficiency and the most productivity? What does it take to reprogram people who believe their job is to find problems to find solutions? What does it take to redirect instigators to productivity or at least minimize their disruptions?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Predictor

[Predictor 11]

A related problem is that people have the wrong goals. I mean that I will read comments on random news paper articles where people clearly have a goal to appear smart, to win at arguments, to make others look bad, even though such behavior could only have an effect on their ego. We've seen that behavior in this very thread.

 

I'm reminded by Barry Greenstein's message that it's not important to win every argument. It is not important to appear the smartest. It is not always beneficial to prove oneself right. I've had a few conversations where I've been exposed to harsh sales tactics or a variation of the dyad attack. Sometimes it is better to let another win or even to appear stupid then to appear smart and give away potentially valuable information. Sometimes it is best to let someone insult you versus to respond. This is wisdom.

 

Sometimes I've made a point when training other traders to say "Hey, if you're busy picking out my spelling and grammar errors then you are wrong focused. You're not focused on winning. You're not focused on the message." I try to keep bring the important matters back into focus.. winning.

 

I believe I've solved this problem as best as possible, and now will move on to other topics. But look forward to any other contributions.

[SIUYA 11]

Okay, there are some good ideas presented....however collaboration works best when the people collaborating have something of substance to share...and they do so without having a hidden agenda.

 

Actually often people with no substance can often help others because they either

• ask the 'dumb' questions others often wont,
  
• they generally can help clarify some 'dead end' positions or
  
• they can show that there are areas of no substance that can be ignored.
  

 

however you are correct - once an agenda other that that of solving a problem or having a discussion is in place then it all goes to pot.

 

Unfortunately Predictor - this is an open forum for discussion - and so by its nature is open to the good and bad of it. There are private discussions i am sure you can have with others.....that then has its own good and bad.

 

Its like taking a knife to a gun fight. Both tools will do the same job, its just one is the wrong venue for it.

[zdo 20]

... however collaboration works best when the people collaborating have something of substance to share...and they do so without having a hidden agenda.

 

:hell lo :::

folks re “collaboration” if collaboration is really a primary part of what you are seeking it’s best to delete all the internet forums from your Favorites folder.

Only 1 in 10000 forum participants are genuinely (and temporarily btw) seeking real collaboration… and the odds of that 1 being someone who wants to collaborate on the same opportunities or on the same (or even very similar) approaches as you – 1 in 1&manyzeros

 

:godsmak:

… and re “they do so without having a hidden agenda” …the unconscious agendas are much more of an impediment than are the “hidden” ones …

 

… my jaded can kick your jaded’s ass

[steve46 12]

:hell lo :::

folks re “collaboration” if collaboration is really a primary part of what you are seeking it’s best to delete all the internet forums from your Favorites folder.

Only 1 in 10000 forum participants are genuinely (and temporarily btw) seeking real collaboration… and the odds of that 1 being someone who wants to collaborate on the same opportunities or on the same (or even very similar) approaches as you – 1 in 1&manyzeros

 

:godsmak:

… and re “they do so without having a hidden agenda” …the unconscious agendas are much more of an impediment than are the “hidden” ones …

 

… my jaded can kick your jaded’s ass

 

Yep you are probably right...

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

 

Some thoughts:

 

1.

 

You seem to be assuming that there is always a 'problem' to be found? The whole notion of such classes of contributor seems to me to be built upon a wholly arbitrary construct of category boundaries, and ought to be resigned to the class of all classes whose members are not members of themselves . . . (in case you haven't studied engineering, that would be the 'null' class!).

 

2.

 

Predictor, your whole post is clearly motivated by a sellfish desire to attract customers to pay for your bunkum vendor services. Your thoughts in this thread are rabid, pig-ignorant, and stultifyingly ill-informed.

 

3.

 

We've got a hedgehog comes into our garden . . .

 

4.

 

Your post led me to reconsider something that was recently said in the Daytrading the E-mini Futures thread. You can find the relevant post somewhere here:

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/e-mini-futures-trading-laboratory/9773-day-trading-e-mini-futures-613.html

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

On a more serious note, whilst searching for some information recently, I found myself reading posts on various other forums. TL seems to me to be the place where one stands the best chance by far of engaging in a worthwhile discussion and interacting with people who might be able to help.

 

Although I think your categories are relevant, I'd like to think that I evade them; my reply generally depends upon my mood at the time, and could very easily fall into any of the five classes of response you delineate.

 

BlueHorseshoe

[Predictor 11]

Blue,

 

 

>Predictor, your whole post is clearly motivated by a sellfish desire to attract customers to >pay for your bunkum vendor services. Your thoughts in this thread are rabid, pig-ignorant, >and stultifyingly ill-informed.

 

Lol, I got hot headed when I read that one until I realized your point. It's interesting just how much words can influence people.

 

Well, one interesting or strange dynamic is that we see competition/aggression flair up when we have opposing groups with similar but not identical beliefs. Examples gangs Bloods vs Crips, religions with similar ideas i.e Abraham faiths, i.e shia vs sunni, etc. These interesting aspect is that each group is that the opposing forces typically have quite a bit in common. But, instead of the commonality bringing collaboration it actually brings conflict which seems ironic.

 

I might also add a new response type, the simple answer. The simple answer is an answer that is meant to solve a trivial problem but doesn't meet the higher standards of synthesis thinking. Simple answers could be Type 5 and Synthesis would be Type 6, with Synthesis the most-valued/highest form of reply possible.

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

Lol, I got hot headed when I read that one until I realized your point. It's interesting just how much words can influence people.

 

Ha! Yes, jokes are always a little dangerous in writing - I figured the hedgehog comment gave it away though . . . As for simple answers, like anything else, I find they range from trite and meaningless to perceptive and helpful. From time to time I post questions in the coding forum, and then pray for a simple answer!

 

BlueHorseshoe

[Ingot54 13]

I like the way you are thinking, Predictor. Clearly everyone has different views on your approaches to problem-solving, but the forum is so much the richer for that.

 

When contributors participate in ways that are not in the spirit of the discussion, such as we see from time to time, but dare not name it for what it is, do we weaken our position?

 

Is that succumbing to fear of confrontation?

 

My approach to being insulted on forums is to give the antagonist no further oxygen. They like to make their point and then announce they are taking no further part - BUT ... usually they lurk in the background, looking to see what effects their comments have had. Almost 100% of times, they will be back ... this personality can not resist taking one last swipe ... or more than one "last swipe."

 

Where does that antagonist fit, in the scheme of things?

 

There is no rule that says they deserve a response to bad manners, baiting, trolling, ego-stroking ... and so on. But was that a poor judgement? Was the post "bad manners, baiting, trolling, ego-stroking" ... or was it a legit contribution?

 

One thing such a member can not brook, is being ignored.

 

It takes all types to form a forum ... and as you said plainly in the OP, there are 5 types - we have seen a few of them. I would class myself in one of the categories one day, and differently on another day. That's ok ... but at the same time, the Internet forum being what it is, it quite often happens that the typed-versus-spoken word is frequently misconstrued, and we may get pigeon-holed into a slot we might not have deserved.

 

Thanks for the thread.