Perhaps others can learn a lesson here. I found the nature of the response interesting, if predictable. Note the evasion and politeness.
Politeness, because we do not wish to acknowledge 'unpleasant' truths. Not all opinions are equal. Not all traders are equal. By being overly polite, we seek to use social cues to telegraph the range of "acceptable" debate. Because if the thread starter examined himself, the objective is neither learning nor profitable trading, but following a preconceived path according to a roadmap which has already been decided based on principles which have already been accepted as true.
Evasion, because the issues are not addressed - that the advice being relied upon is likely worthless for the purposes of profitable use of the futures markets, is of questionable provenance, and is being accepted unquestioningly. Begging the question: keeping this journal helps me because it is helpful. No explanation of the connection, if any, between publishing a trading diary and the decision to program trading software to modify the price of a stop order is offered.
This continues with the subversion of my initial advice "you need to develop your own theories and should not uncritically accept popular opinion" into "I agree with you that I need to do what suits me best".
It isn't known to the extent this process is volitional or subconscious, but already we can detect a subtle re-interpretation of information to fit the preconceptions of the thread starter. With this bias in evidence, only the quality of the initial preconceptions will dictate the outcome, regardless of any data which may be presented. If the initial preconceptions are wrong, and a fully open minded approach is not adopted, then the subject will be incapable of objectively interpreting any data from the environment that tends to show that the approach used is unproductive. Instead, data will be selectively interpret to conform to existing bias. The mental gymnastics to thwart cognitive dissonance will be both astonishing and educational to the astute observer.
The title of this thread is "a beginner's mind". We can stand to learn a lot from how this particular beginner has ordered his mind when approaching the task. This is infinitely more interesting than the predicable outcome of the subjects trading.
Our first lesson is the use of labels. We see the subject adopt the nomenclature of technical analysis, which is unhelpful as it is not sufficiently precise or descriptive, and does not show any qualities of market structure - therefore of no assistance in the goal of short term prediction of prices. The subject makes no claims for this analysis, and does not relate it to the stated goal of successful trading. He hasn't argued for why it should assist this goal, or how he will use it to do so. This is assumed, and no debate on the merits will be admitted. Interestingly, we do not make too much of an effort to seriously pretend that we are seeking success. Apply some technical terms and you can decide to believe that you have understanding - after all, you are using the correct labels! The alternative is facing the intimidation of the blank page and the necessity of discovering your own meaning from scratch. The responsibility to determine what data will be used, how it will be represented, and how to create an effective trading plan. Instead the subject chooses to uncritically adopt an unproven and vague set of technical terms as a substitute for understanding.
The second lesson is the substitution of the social for the factual. We will attempt to alter reality by controlling in which way we discuss it. The audience, who have vested interests (perhaps to be discussed later), will aid and abet the subject in enforcing the predetermined "window" of acceptable viewpoints. Detractors will be marginalised, suffer further ad hominem attacks, the ignore list will be suggested, and dramatic pleas from the thread starter to respect (his view) of the (one true) purpose of this thread. (predictably, requests to cease contributions which advance views not endorsed by the subject) Nowhere in this process will consideration or priority be given to facts, the merits of various approaches, or results - namely whether the theories advanced can or do lead to successful trading. We will continue to collectively perpetuate the canard that some progress is being made, some learning done, and that unfocused guessing is part of some process towards effective trading. This will be accepted without question as the guessing is legitimised by the nomenclature and arguments from authority.
The third lesson is to profile each of the participants in this "game" and discern their motives. Successful trading is not the true objective for many here, although it serves as a useful pretext. Lets list our dramatis personae:
the aspirant - "I want to learn to trade" (but am actually using trading and trading forum to indulge some idiosyncratic personal fetish)
the detractor - "successful trading is not possible / the game is rigged"
the enabler - encourages the aspirant to trade and will give positive feedback - lives vicariously through the aspirant, helps give false hope, attacks practitioners and detractors. Trades rarely or has quit completely but still lingers in forums.
the salesman - "I know how to trade, you need to write a trading plan, read Al Brooks and Trading in the Zone, learn TA, work on your psychology" (note this character is selling something, but usually gets paid in something other than money - can you work out their payoff?)
the troll - stirs up controversy, baits other players
the practitioner - will occasionally offer sensible contributions grounded in years of experience as a market professional - in topsy turvy world this individual is treated as a court jester or fool by the other characters
the hopeful one - a fragile sideshow character who will launch random attacks against detractors and practitioners who threaten his hope - these outbursts can get rather out of control
the mystic - Jack Hershey, the chap quoted above who tortured eastern philosophy into market advice: "water has no ego", the astrologist.
So let us continue with Act I, Scene 3 of our production "The Beginner's Mind", which is suspiciously similar to many other similar shows which have played out on this and other forums. With the same cast each time. The rhetorical question: are beginners fungible? The liquidity they provide sure is.
