[TheSundanceKid]

Finally, someone with something intelligent to say!
Sure beats tedious bickering with Comenow.
Now we're making progress...

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
This is a very interesting point. I know that you're right, yet it never ceases to surprise me. It seems to me that it somehow "ought" to be less "shameful" to admit to being lacking in the education necessary to do something than to be lacking in emotional control or self discipline. And yet it seems not to be. Without in any way wishing to make any sort of anti-American point or express any sort of anti-American view, I wonder if this is connected with the fact that trading forums are slightly American orientated because the whole of the internet is slightly American orientated, and that something about the nature of American society predisposes towards a great interest in this sort of "psychology" to the extent that these days many people no longer find it embarrassing to admit to being lacking in emotional control or self discipline. I am simply thinking aloud, and of course with no wish to offend anyone. It's just something that surprises me.

Yeah, I think mostly it's just human nature in general not to want to admit/realize that you may be incompetent when it comes to trading - or anything else for that matter.
Maybe it's easier and less shameful to blame it on emotions rather than intellect because we feel that we can improve/correct our emotional deficiencies easier than our intellectual deficiencies - or that they're less important.
You made an interesting point regarding how the American culture influences this...
Maybe it could also directly pertain to trading in general, as that's where our emotional "issues" are most evident/easily recognizable. We deal with our emotions every day in normal life, but it's not as clear cut or as easily distinguishable as to whether we "win or lose" in life, as it is in trading. It's much easier to see how our emotional desicions affect the outcome of our trading.

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
I think perhaps it's a semantic point. Not so easy these days for unintelligent people to get into graduate school, IMHO, and I don't mean just a narrow academic definition of "intelligent". However, perhaps we can agree that no amount of letters after your name will make you streetwise or give you any practical skills for everyday life or more specifically trading successfully?

Yes, that is a semantic point. I was just trying to point out that trading, like many things, often requires something more and/or different than an academic type of intelligence. The second part of your statement is in line with this.
IMO, Trading may be as much (or more) about common sense (which I consider to be a form of intelligence) than it is about an "academic type" of intelligence.

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
Assuming you are not going out with Imelda Marcos (is she still alive?) I commend you on your choice of girlfriend, anyway.

LOL, no, she's a little too old for me...and probably way out of my league. Wasn't she like a beauty queen back in the day though?

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
Not at all, I was merely trying to pour water on troubled oil.

Don't you know water and oil don't mix!

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
Ok, I understand you now. You are right that I misunderstood before. It is because we mean different things by "intellectually". I agree that it's not easy to discover or develop a consistently profitable trading system; but I wouldn't call that sort of difficulty an "intellectual" one, that's all.

Yeah, I think that's semantic point as well. I believe there are many different facets to intelligence, and that it can not be easily defined/measured, etc. But let me ask you this: If you don't attribute discovering/developing a profitable system to intelligence, then to what do you attribute it to? Emotions? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
Speaking for myself, I have not understood Comenow to say that. But I understand that many people express the views you mention here. And many authors. And many course-sellers. And I completely disgaree with all of them. IMHO the problems far more often lie with the system itself, even if we don't quite agree that that's specifically because it's "intellectually difficult" to come up with them. Anyway, we agree on the more general point that it's not so easy to come up with them. And not so easy to test them out when you "discover" one which you didn't come up with yourself. IMHO that is often because of a lack of education and understanding of the realities of statistics, though, and sometimes because of what one might call an "intellectual laziness", which I suppose - just to make it even more semantic - I am differentiating from a lack of "intellect".

Don't get me wrong, I think that emotions play a big part in trading, and can definitely make or break you - but I don't think they're necessarily the main factor in determining whether or not you're able to be profitable, and I don't think that intellect should be discounted as much as I feel it is by many people, all the time.

Now it's also true that trading is different for everyone, and that what may be difficult for you, may not be difficult for me, and vice versa. Emotions may not be a big factor for me, but they may for you (and vice versa). The same goes for intellect I imagine.
On top of differences due to an individual's personality, it may vary depending upon your trading system/methodology. I may have a largely mechanical strategy - which relies very little, if at all, on emotions. On the other hand, you may use a largely discretionary strategy, in which your ability to control your emotions is a big factor.
The point here is to keep an open mind, and to try to get a better understanding of all this - which is my goal.
I don't think there is any "right" or "wrong" answer here (as people like Comenow would have you believe).

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
I suppose so. Although one would have to be very bad to spoil something simple and profitable. One would have to be full of one's own beliefs and the desire to "improve" and "adapt" things (i.e. screw them up) and not keep to the rules; one would have to want to "add the parts of something that one likes on to what one already does" or some such nonsense.

Well for example, let's say you had a profitable system, but you could not follow the rules properly because of your emotions. You would close trades early because of fear, take bigger risks then you're supposed to because of greed, and not cut your losses early due to a lack of discipline.
That's a good example of where a bad trader could ruin a good system. I also think it takes much more effort and self control to adhere to a system than it does not to. It's very easy to want to change things or deviate from the system - even though you know you should not.

Now, on the other hand, you could have a trader who executes an unprofitable system perfectly and follows all the rules religiously, but who fails because the system is not profitable. No matter how good a trader they are, they will not be profitable using that system, because the flaw lies within the system, not themselves.

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
It's too vaguely worded to be accurately debatable, let alone the discussions about how it's measured.

I'm not saying that this statistic is right, just that it's the generally accepted one that is used throughout the industry - at least according to everything I've heard and everyone I've talked to. If you have different figures/statistics, please feel free to share them and/or correct me.

Originally posted by JanaSergeevna
But I will let you off this one in case you have better things to do than have a long-winded semantic argument with a pedantic European girl.

Oh, well actually participating in long-winded semantic debates with pedantic European girls is one of my favorite hobbies - especially when the markets are slow.

Good Trading,

Sundance