I must apologize for this late post. There are several of us in quite separated time zones who were not aware of what was happening with this thread (Is it so odd to think that multiple personalities might reside in different time zones? If so, you don't travel much.)
I note that our posts are becoming less about what we learned about trading and more about what we learned about ourselves. For example, Jack has been quite generous over the years with his gratuitous mind-reading distance-analysis character assessments of us. Many were the nights we held each other and cried ourselves to sleep. But over the years also we have seen ourselves in contradistinction to the general character of the A-Team. Perhaps you too have had the experience of saying to yourself "Why don't I get it?", or "Why can't I believe?"
For example, the distinction between critical and credulous comes to mind. Surely you have had the experience of seeing a new trading idea, coding it up or setting the prescribed indicators on the screen, and sitting for hours running through tests or scrolling backward in time to see how the idea worked. With a few such promising ideas, even complex ones, I have immediately launched into cautious forward testing, perhaps just testing entries with a trigger finger ready to exit. I certainly have never agonized over something a year!
Case in point, I took the late Eddie Toppel's one-day ES course some years ago, coded it up, tested it, optimized it for NQ, and traded it, all in the course of a few days. Now I am no genius, but I can read, even something as ambiguous as what Jack writes, and comprehend the basics quickly. Telling me that I need a year to master it? You are selling me something, even if the price isn't denominatged in dollars.
For another example, I have always made my living, as many of us in Hypo's head have, doing hard analytical work, be it in planning or day-to-day management or in engineering design or in financial analysis. The hard real-world realities of making decisions based on go-no-go criteria are second nature. So it is quite foreign to me to read instructions in a trading system that are qualitative at best and ambiguous at worst. Everything I do professionally or in my recreational trading I model and test and adapt and refine. So I can only assume that my disdain for SCT is a techie thing, that the system is meant for liberal arts majors comfortable with slippery concepts. Hell, it's not even fuzzy logic. That I could handle. It's "sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and eventually you will learn to tell the difference."
Personally I think it is the classic case of expert performance that NLP was invented to model. Jack and Spydertrader are expert traders, and they have invented rationales for what they do, but those rationales very poorly represent their actual unconscious decision processes. Me, I'm stupid. I need explicit hard-and-fast rules. Is she insecure enough that I can seduce and fuck her in one night? If I display the right degree of confidence without arrogance, can I get him to do what I tell him to without having to listen to whining and give endless explanations? If I keep up a line of patter with this nice interested old lady, will she forget to scan my credit card and just bag my CDs? If I fund six man-months of thorough algorithm description documentation, will it save me problems in transition to production next year? What are my odds if I short a tick above the previous high of the day?
Lord save us from the innumerate in all aspects of modern life!