The psychology of the successful trader. - page 5

[Yuriy Asaulenko]

Aleksey Ivanov:

Psychology is not pseudoscience (Maxim is mistaken), it is not science at all, as it does not meet the criteria of science well, although it does use part of scientific methodology.

By the way, this does not at all mean that psychology is unnecessary).

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Aleksey Ivanov:

With all respect to your, undoubtedly highest, intelligence, I cannot agree with your first thesis ("Psychology is a pseudoscience"). Of course, psychology is very far from exact sciences by the level of strictness and unambiguity of its conclusions, but there is science as a set of characteristic methods, on the basis of which many researches have been carried out.

Further, we are not talking here about some purely "psychological approach to trading". Simply, each person has a set of psychological qualities, which are characteristic of him (you will not deny that). And these qualities, sometimes have a very strong effect on his trade. Some qualities, let's call them strong, help, and other qualities - hinder. And this is the set of these strong qualities we are trying to figure out in this thread.

And the fact that "The only important thing in trading is (here, however, the problem is narrowed down by you) experience and intelligent actions, as everywhere else" - so no one is denying it.

But how does the work of the large hemispheres (abstract thinking, intellectual activity) correlate with a set of "psychological" complexes that have nothing to do with these abstract images, when the stimuli for these complexes are absent?

The "psychological" qualities change in the course of life, time of day and well-being, or do not have a clear form at all, a person can simulate any behaviour. There are individual cases, but this is not psychology but psychiatry :)

But it has nothing to do with an abstract task, for example, making a decision about opening a trade based on certain rules (if they are formalized in advance). If there are no formalized rules, it is dementia, and it is not about psychology, but a lack of experience.

Because of dementia and lack of understanding of the subject, a person can refer to his "psychology" because he does not have any more reference points.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Yuriy Asaulenko:

Psychology is not pseudoscience (Maxim is mistaken), it is not science at all, as it does not meet the criteria of science well, although it does use part of scientific methodology.

By the way, this does not at all mean that psychology is unnecessary).

Right, but it purports to be one...

And since it's not even science, it's like "the religion of the successful trader", or "Harry Potter of the successful trader"

:D

[Aleksey Ivanov]

Maxim Dmitrievsky:

And how does the work of the large hemispheres (abstract thinking, intellectual activity) relate to a set of "psychological" complexes unrelated to these abstract images, when the agents of these complexes are absent?

The "psychological" qualities change in the course of life, time of day and well-being, or do not have a clear form at all, a person can simulate any behaviour. There are individual cases, but this is not psychology but psychiatry :)

But it has nothing to do with an abstract task, for example, making a decision about opening a trade based on certain rules (if they are formalized in advance). If there are no formalized rules, it is dementia, and it is not about psychology, but a lack of experience.

Because of weak-mindedness and lack of understanding of the subject a person can refer to his "psychology" because he does not have any more reference points.

By purely formalised algorithms only a comp opens positions. A man is not a computer, and if he trades by hand, anyway, even if he bases on the clear strategy, the psychological moment is involved there. And to close losing positions on time (not everyone is capable of it) - this is where psychology comes into full play.

Here is an elementary example - some person is able to close loss-making positions in time, while another one is not (it is psychologically difficult for him/her), though this person may be not an imbecile or even a genius, but greedy, for example, which is his/her psychological characteristic.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Aleksey Ivanov:

According to purely formalised algorithms only a computer opens positions. A man is not a computer, and if he trades manually, then one way or another, even if he is following a clear strategy, a psychological moment is involved. And to close losing positions on time (not everyone is capable of it) - this is where psychology comes into full play.

Here is an elementary example - someone is able to close loss positions in time, and someone is not (it is psychologically difficult for him, although this person may be not completely stupid, and maybe even on the contrary, almost a genius, but, for example, greedy, which is his psychological characteristics.

I've already written - psychologically it's hard when there is no experience and knowledge

children learn to eat with a spoon and not to smear poop on the wall is also psychologically very hard :)

What you wrote is just a basic misunderstanding of what a person is trying to do, gambling, haphazard, random behaviour

[Yuriy Asaulenko]

Aleksey Ivanov:

According to purely formalised algorithms only a computer opens positions. A man is not a computer, and if he trades manually, then one way or another, even if he is following a clear strategy, a psychological moment is involved. And to close losing positions on time (not everyone is capable of it) - this is where psychology comes into full play.

Here is an elementary example - someone is able to close loss-making positions in time, and someone is not (it is psychologically difficult for him/her), though this person may be not completely unwise, but maybe even on the contrary, almost a genius, but, for example, greedy, which is his/her psychological characteristics.

At one time I wrote rules on a sheet of paper, in large print, and put them in front of my computer so that they were in front of my eyes. You know, so you don't have to think about it.

Actually, it helps.)

[Aleksey Ivanov]

Maxim Dmitrievsky:

I've already written - psychologically it's hard when there's no experience and knowledge

Children learn to eat with a spoon and not smear poo on the wall is also psychologically very hard :)

What you have written is just a basic misunderstanding of what a man is trying to do, gambling, haphazardness.

Do you think that the market and our lives are ruled solely by systematicity and all people's actions are based on miscalculation and reasonableness? Do you think that once a person has gained experience in a difficult situation (say, in battle) it will be easy to go through the same thing?

[Aleksey Ivanov]

Yuriy Asaulenko:

At one time, I wrote the rules on a piece of paper, in large print, and posted them in front of my computer for my eyes to see. You know, so you don't have to think about it.

Actually, it helps.)

It's a psychological trick.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Aleksey Ivanov:
Do you think that the market and our lives are ruled solely by systematicity and all people's actions are based only on miscalculation and rationality? Do you think that by gaining experience in a difficult situation (say, in battle) it will be easy for a person to go through the same thing?

strategic behaviour always wins in our lives, and what reigns is another matter

Experience is priceless.

[Aleksey Ivanov]

Maxim Dmitrievsky:

strategic behaviour always wins in our lives, and what reigns is another matter

experience is priceless.

No one is arguing with that. I subscribe to that as well. Strategic behaviour is the ideal to aspire to, but in practice, there are strong, so to speak, fluctuations in this behaviour, which we find ourselves unable to manage.