Quote from Laissez Faire:
Technical analysis is the study of price action. Thus, all analysis of price action is technical analysis. Even if it`s at the bid/ask level without a chart. At the most fundamental level we can say that technical analysis is built on concepts such as support and resistance, trends (identifying and trading them), trading ranges, breakouts and identifying oversold/overbought conditions.
Now, there are certain people who believe that adding indicators may help them better identify trends or trend reversals and oversold/overbought conditions. Most people who are new to trading are drawn to these indicators, since it gives an impression of a 100% win rate and free money. After all, it does look pretty cool and impressive, right?
Then you have a different group of people who believe that adding indicators only distort the price action, especially since most of those indicators are derived from price and volume itself. They know that indicators are lagging and that there is no indicator that works all the time. For example, in a strong trend, an oscillating indicator may say that the market is overbought while the trend still has lots of potential. These people believe that the solution to this problem is to drop indicators altogether and simply study pure price action without any indicators, except for volume.
Both group use the basic concepts from technical analysis, they only differ in that one group uses indicators to help analyze price while the other drops them altogether.
Thus, the real distinction should be trading without indicators versus trading with indicatorsThose who don`t use indicators have commonly been called price action traders.
Personally, I am of the opinion that price derived indicators adds nothing of value to a discretionary chart trader. Actually, they are more likely to hurt your trading. For a system trader it would be a different story.
Does that make sense?
What you say does make sense, although it is interesting that, historically, charts without any indicators were the norm (simply because indicators hadn't been invented yet) and if those are actually better, why did indicators come into existence? Was it just pure snake oil right from the get go? Believe me, I know that it's impossible to be too cynical when dealing with the trading world, so if your answer is yes, I won't be surprised.

So, though, to go back to my original question, is there any statistical evidence to indicate different levels or likelihoods of profitability among your two groups? Again, we've all seen "method wars" where one school of traders shits all over another, but in a field where 90% of traders fail, is there really any approach which makes you likely to succeed or is it simply the case that individuals, using their own unique approaches, find a way to succeed despite the fact that other individuals using approaches which would broadly be classed as being similar in kind fail?
To repeat what I said above, if it were documented that only 50% of PA traders (or, in your terms, traders not using indicators) failed, while 95% of other traders fail, that would be a major research finding, in my opinion. Maybe I'm off in thinking that, though, but it seems to me it would be analogous to saying, "Only 5% of people who want to play a pro sport make it to the pros, but 50% of the people who want to play pro sports who use Brand X sports drink make it". Who in their right mind wouldn't use Brand X sports drink in that context?