Rande Howell

From one of the most reliable and tested personality inventories ever used. The Myers-Briggs personality inventory is derivative of Jung's archetypes. And both authors went to Jung to get his approval for quantifying his archetypes in the way they did. The M-B was orginally commissioned by the Army after they recognized how terrribly they organized men into teams during WW1. The creators studied his archetypes and built them into the instrument. Army's organization of men into coordinated teams improved to produce a very different Army for WW11 (that's the proof). The M-B has stood the test of time. And is still used today and is considered the grand daddy of all personality inventories. Dirivatives of it are used as a way of selecting all sorts of employees by business. Pearson's work is much more pure and succient in accessing and measuring the elements of personality in my opinion. The PMAI is a powerfully valid and reliable instrument for measuring elements of the human personality. Pearson selected a statistics guy with impeccable credentials to produce and validate the tests. I would suggest that you take the pmai and discover for yourself, particularly the shadow side. My suspicion (not fact) is that you would find strong Creator (intuition) and shadow Orphan (trust issues). Rande Howell

Just to set things a little straighter. I know zdo only from TL and do not know his real name. I asked him to manage this thread because, over time, I came to appreciate his level headed ness. Since he has never done any of any of my work and appeared truly interested in advancing knowledge of trading, and recognizing the need for emotional and psychological development, he seemed a good prospect. that's it. As far as Killing Rande, I really don't care what people say when there assessments are globalized and are not evidenced base. I listen to people's comments about my performances, but place no value on their judgments of my being. It is simply not theirs to judge. rande Howell

johnw Curiosity is an important aspect of Mindfulness and is part of how the brain/mind teases apart rigidly held beliefs. And we are on a journey to improve our perception of reality through trading. My point is that there are different ways of understanding time. Geologic or evolutionary time is very different than the sense of time than is experienced typically in trading. God has an eternity to work out the kinks in the cosmos. The temporal time that we must manage in our everyday lives is very different. It's the reactiveness of set patterns that need to be addressed. In due time, I have no doubt that it will all work out. Meanwhile, I'm all for the altering of neurally wired beliefs much more rapidly. My guess is that I should have left your comment alone. Sorry about any confusion. Rande

Assessment and judgment are used by me to distinguish between evidence that supports an interpretation of performance while judgment holds the quality of a characterization of the self. This comes out of the work of Fernando Flores who was a student of Martin Heideger. Self limiting beliefs are external judgments of a human being that have taken on the feel of truth. Assessment is a way to interprete competence in performance. Makes a huge difference in the way a trader sees him or her self and their performance. Rande Howell

The natural tendency in cosmic time is perceived very differently in temporal time. Most traders do not have enough time to play the cosmic time clock. Rande Howell

zdo I intentionally force a square peg into a round hole. Archetypes make more sense if seen from an emotional point of view, where emotions are biological in nature and not psychological. Orphan in biological terms is our limbic system. It is this adaptation driven by fear that is at the core of moving from a fear based trading mind to a probability based trading mind. Our mindlessness to our Orphan nature is what keeps us trapped in self limiting beliefs from my perspective. The empowered side of Orphan is also where our resilency is rooted. Very necessary in trading. Most traders initially simply want to get rid of the Orphan, but it is rooted in our emotional brain so we can't. We can learn to re-grow it so that it becomes a working part of the team of the self. Developing Mindfulness, or awareness of our humanness, as we trade really opens up the possibility or reorganizing the self for more effective trading where our fear is detangled from uncertainty. This is where we can start developing a mindset to manage ambiguity. Rande

To all I was actually surprized to see this posted. It is my opening comments in my newsletter. I am not sure if I accidentally posted it thinking that it was this month's article of if TL posted it. Makes an interesting post none the less. Rande Howell

I appreciate your comments. When loss occurs, a trader will discover that a mistake has occurred in his methodology or his psychology, which need to be addressed. If not one of these two, then most likely probability is the issue -- being on the wrong side of what your preference was. And you move on. I find most trader simply make more and more subtle mistakes as they gain competence. Distinguishing mistakes from probability becomes very important. Rande Howell

There is more to it than simply moving on. When a loss occurs, there are 3 primary domains that is associated with the loss. Methodology, psychology, or the wrong side of probability. If the first two, then you learn the lessons from the mistake in your performance. If probability, then you move on. Rande Howell

Nothing. He was paid by the Options Council to present. They are very serious about education. He is simply an independent trader willing to share his wisdom. Sense I did not have permission to cite him by name (the OIC is very serious about this stuff), you an contact the OIC directly and ask who the first speaker was. Rande Howell

zdo What most traders come to recognize is that the Orphan archetype in its shadow form has been center stage in their trading. From there, ruler (discipline) and warrior (courage) have been serving the Orphan, which puts them in shadow form. The 4 element course is way too short to made an in depth study of the shadow side of the archetypal energies. I recommend Carol Pearson's Awakening the Heroes Within. She also has a archetypal index called the pmai that I use with my individual clients. It's a powerful tool. It is the lack of awareness of self that gets traders in trouble. Rande

What's the gap between actual performance when the money counts and classroom knowledge? This past weekend while waiting to speak at the Options Industry Council Conference in Chicago, I was listening to a highly successful trader give a presentation. And 250 attendees were rightly riveted on his every word. He made a statement about certain conditions in which he would not trade that went against the grain of conventional wisdom in options trading. The hands shot up. Why? Why? Why? Everyone wanted to dispute his reasoning -- even before they knew his reasons. They wanted to know the rule that produced the certainty of his decision. What's the theory? How is that part of a reasoned methodology? His answer -- "I got tired of being bludgeoned to death, so I changed. I moved on. No big deal." That was his trading rule based on mistakes he had made over 25 years of trading. And it had served him well. He made a mistake (and lost) and learned from it. He learned how to manage his risks in his trading world and he moved on. There was not a "reason" -- there was a "learning moment" that he became open to because of the pain of his mistake. It was his openness to learning from mistakes and moving on that impressed me. Meanwhile, many people in the audience were not ready to let this one go. They wanted to know the real reason. Then he asked the audience, "How many of you people keep making the same mistake over and over again? How many of you people learn when you lose from your mistakes? And how many of you people insist on being right even if it is costing you money? Then I say you don't know how to lose." Read that last sentence again. There was an awkward silence, and no one raised their hand. Then he said to them, "Learning how to lose, so that you learn from your mistakes, is the biggest lesson you'll ever learn in becoming a successful trader. You have to become very comfortable with losing because if you trade, you are going to lose. And if you don't learn from losing -- then you continue losing. This is how you manage risk." You might want to imprint those sentences into your memory circuits. So, how do you lose? Look to your performance when you lose, rather than the explanation you create about your losing. Have you developed a mindset that allows you to learn from your mistakes? Or do you keep hanging on to your losers -- not acknowledging that cutting your losses is simply an integral part of trading? Or do you take a preemptive strike and avoid getting in trades so you don't lose -- and forfeiting the opportunity to learn from losing? How do you build a mindset like this trader's? Use this newsletter to explore this question. Even losing, when you have an effective mindset, becomes a tool for becoming an effective trader. This month's article explores this very point. Speaking in NYC, Las Vegas, and Charlotte Depending on where you live and/or your motivation to learn and travel, I cordially invite you to one of my live presentations this Thursday November 3 at 6 PM at 120 Wall St at the offices of Forex Club, at the Traders Expo in Las Vegas at 8 AM on Friday, November 18, or at the Market Technicians Association's Charlotte chapter in early December. Learn about the skills and tools for developing your mind for trading. It's usually forgotten as you learn to trade. But it keeps biting you until you learn to respect this need. Learning to Lose Effectively Become the commander of your journey into trading. Learn to walk the walk. Build the mind that you bring to your trading. It is the one thing in trading you can control. Seize the opportunity that is knocking at the door of your mind. Explore the contents of this newsletter. Go to the website. Read articles. Listen to videos. Read my book, Mindful Trading: Mastering Fear and the Inner Game. Then read it again. Sign up for one of our free webinars. Turn your mind from "fearing to lose" to the mindset that allows you to learn how to win from your losing. Step out of your comfort zone about winning and losing. Confront your complacency and fear that prevents you from taking action on developing your mind for trading. This is the game changer. To your prosperity, Rande Howell

zdo Thank you. I will work more diligently to keep from getting suckered into these. Thanks for your leadership and direction. Rande Howell

To all in the Developing Traders State of Mind group: I just posted an article under Articles/Psychology whose title is "If I KNOW How to Tade and Manage Rsk, Why Can't I Do It When the Money Counts?" It is useful for the learning occurring in the course. It hasn't been vetted yet by TL so it's not got a link. Rande Howell

SUIYA The root of emotional regulation as I work with it is about initially disrupting an already established pattern that triggers an unwanted behavior repetiore, whether it's avoidance based or impulse based. In trading these hard wired patterns are vastly skewed toward fear based patterns. That's why my emphasis is so focused there. I'll get 10 fear cases to 1 impulse case. The major difference in working with people who have impulse problems is the amount of time invested in teasing apart the triggering mechanism of the established pattern of impulse. There will be subtle (or not so subtle) antecedents before the on set of an impulse reaction. Most of these will go unnoticed because familiarity has moved them from the foreground of awareness to the background of awareness. As you learn how to slow down the process of the impulsive cascade, the person learns how manage the arousal of the emotion behind the impulse by disrupting elements within the chain of reaction. The major way I use in decoding an impulse is by slowing down memory of an event so that with each sweep back through the memory, the linkage between the different elements becomes part of working awareness. Before the motivation of the impulse happens (attack), there will be a build up of emotional energy and the body will be cued for action. It is these that the client has to learn and have counter measures for. In addition there will be conditioned response to the triggering antecendent that disrupts the ramping up of energy (the impulse) in the neural circuitry. In some cases it is simply biology that has run amok and simple mindfulness is applied as a safe guard. Other times meaning is a contributing factor to the maintaince of the impulse. I can't tell you how many traders have something to prove to someone (usually dead) about their worth, adequacy, mattering, or power that is at the root of the impulse. Other times the impulse is simply a piece of our biology that needs to be under better management. What you cause me to consider here is actually building a learning system just for impulse. In speaking with you here, I've discovered that I have considered impulse to be a subset of fear (which it usually is). This is a bias that I need to examine. Thanks Rande Howell

This is an articles that one of the partipants in the Developing Traders Mind sent to me. He was not interested in posting it himself, but I thought the article is applicable to our situation. I am not a fan of Albert Ellis or his brand of CBT, but I do respect the insight that this colleague provides here. It was sent to me as a PDF and I have no idea where the link came from Rande Howell Overcoming "Self-Esteem" Why Our Compulsive Drive for "Self-Esteem" Is Anxiety-Provoking, Socially Inhibiting, and Self-Sabotaging by David Mills with an afterword by Albert Ellis, Ph.D. © Albert Ellis Institute 2003 Twenty years ago, when a person complained of depression or unhappiness, helpful friends or therapists might have offered the following counsel: "Don't dwell on your own misfortune. Try instead to become creatively absorbed in outside interests and external activities. Stop obsessively contemplating your own navel. Develop rewarding interpersonal relationships. Get your mind off yourself. If you merely focus attention elsewhere, your self-centered emotional problems will die of neglect." Today, however, the same individual, suffering the same depression or unhappiness, would likely hear radically different and quite contradictory suggestions and guidance, such as this: "Stop worrying about other people. Try instead to build up your own sense of self-worth. Take pride in yourself! Work toward elevating your own self-respect and enhancing your self-image. Your feelings of unhappiness and depression will surely evaporate if you only esteem yourself more highly!" Clearly, something has changed in the kind of popular advice being given to the forlorn. Instead of espousing that mental health be realized through more objective appraisal of the external world, we now seem preoccupied with the wholly internal effort to elevate our own self-appraisal or "self-worth." Forget our former effort to perceive the universe objectively; today we simply want to feel good about ourselves. It has become increasingly irrelevant whether or not an individual's critical reasoning accurately maps external reality. All that matters, it seems, is his or her internal self-image. Because of this shift in popular emphasis from external preoccupation to internal selfcontemplation, we find our libraries and bookstores stacked with radically different selfhelp texts from those published a few decades ago. Each new volume proclaims a "breakthrough technique" or "revolutionary method" for conquering our ever-present doubts about our "true" value. Best-selling books, such as I'm OK, You're OK, have sought to instill within the doubtful individual a belief that, although he may not be perfect, he is at least okay and can thus bestow upon himself a modest allotment of selfrespect and happiness. Yet despite the wide distribution of such popular texts, and despite our tireless efforts to build within ourselves and our children a sense of self-worth, it seems that the average person today is as confused as ever (perhaps more so!) about her so-called "self-worth." Our lofty sermons deifying self-esteem have produced few, if any, tangible results. In practical terms, the average person doesn't know what to believe about her "self" nor how she is supposed to establish such a "positive self-image." The entire concept of "personal worth" has become hopelessly ill-defined and philosophically empty. It is my contention that the promotion of "self-esteem" has done demonstrably more harm than good, and that the prudent individual will resist the arrogant and childish temptation to "esteem himself." Put another way, we shall learn in this article why an individual would enjoy increased emotional stability and contentment, and suffer far less anxiety and inhibition by abandoning his drive for self-esteem. Unfortunately, the entire discussion in many psychological circles has now focused on how best to teach self-esteem, rather than on whether self-valuation or self-rating is emotionally healthy. Our blind devotion to self-esteem has become a virtual religion, a religion in which the worshiper and the worshiped are the same individual! The nobility of self-esteem has become a sacred, unchallenged article of faith. And just as the non- Christian is perceived as immoral by the fundamentalist believer, so too the proposal to abandon self-esteem must appear a dangerous and obscene heresy to those preaching the self-esteeming gospel. We tend to ascribe many of our social maladies, such as drug abuse, to a lack of selfesteem among teenagers. Criminals, we say, have little self-respect; otherwise they would not behave as they do. Religious institutions especially have proposed an inextricable link between morality and self-respect: a person without self-respect is thought to be a person without ethical standards. It is popularly believed that the poor, the downtrodden, and the homeless individual put herself in her sorry condition through a lack of self-pride. “Pride goes before a fall.” We harbor no doubt that a fallen person, completely unaided, can pick herself up by the bootstraps, if she only regains her self-esteem. Dale Carnegie, the genius of human relations, observed over fifty years ago that each person craves a "feeling of importance" and longs to be recognized, praised, and appreciated by his peers. Freud himself proposed that virtually all human behavior can be traced ultimately to two basic instincts: the sex drive, and the "desire to be great." The contemporary psychotherapist, Nathaniel Branden, along with his mentor, the late philosopher, Ayn Rand, hammers home one point repeatedly: that the "psychology of self-esteem" is indispensable to an individual's intellectual growth and overall psychological well-being. Why, then, would we want to abandon self-esteem? Isn't such an idea fundamentally flawed, if not downright immoral? Wouldn't society soon wither and decay if such a twisted suggestion were adopted? How could a person conceivably enjoy his life without some measure of self-esteem? Let's begin with a precise definition of terms. When we say that an individual has selfesteem or self-respect, self-love, self-admiration, or self-worth, we do not mean that he values himself without any proposed justification. People do tend to view themselves positively for a reason, the basis for which is usually that they perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that they possess admirable personal traits (e.g., high intelligence, creative talent, physical attractiveness) or have accomplished some outstanding personal achievement (e.g., graduated from medical school, married well, landed a prestigious job). Self-esteem, it appears, is conditional; it comes through perceived individual accomplishment or through supposed possession of desirable personal characteristics. A businessman may enjoy self-esteem because, from his viewpoint, he is professionally successful and treats his family well. A teenage girl boasts self-esteem because she earned straight A's on her report card and made the varsity cheerleading squad. A politician may feel self-esteem because she won a lopsided victory in the last election and sponsored a popular congressional bill to help her constituents. Nearly always, people rate or esteem themselves on the basis of certain achievements. Remember Key Point #1: Most people unfortunately believe that selfesteem must, in some way, be earned through accomplishments. Not only do most individuals believe that self-esteem must be earned, but also that it must be reinforced repeatedly and tirelessly if it is to survive within their psychological framework. As an illustration, think for a moment about your own personal achievements. Select three lifetime accomplishments of which you are most proud. Take ample time; give this question careful reflection before continuing. Now, after recalling your three most celebrated successes, ask yourself this question: "How long did I esteem myself following each of these achievements?" Your probable answer is "Not very long." Regardless of how magnificent our performance at any specific endeavor, our feelings of increased self-worth following such an accomplishment are almost invariably short-lived. No feat of bravery, act of heroism, or display of superior intellectual acumen will bless the individual with permanent self-esteem. He must savor the moment: for soon his expanded ego will deflate and, once again, he will feel driven to prove himself worthy of life and happiness. A majority of people seem to believe that, if they could gloriously achieve X or Y in their lifetime, such an accomplishment would forever rid them of intermittent feelings of inadequacy. They might aspire to be chief executive officer of their corporation. They might envision themselves discovering a cure for cancer. Or they might fantasize about marrying a highly desirable person of the opposite sex. But whatever the objective, it is folly to believe that this "ultimate" triumph will provide more than a temporary, fleeting sensation of self-esteem. It is no surprise, for example, that many long-retired boxers feel compelled to reenter the spotlight (e.g., Mohammed Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard). Financial compensation, however important, was not the primary motivation inspiring their return to the ring. These champions sought to resurrect within themselves that former feeling of self-pride, which came through defeating a weaker opponent and through being the focus of public adoration. Not only the champion boxer, but many of us find it disheartening, or even depressing, when forced to retire from a job, the performance of which is integral to our self-esteem. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all disclosed in their respective memoirs that even becoming President of the United States soon became a routine, often boring affair. All four Presidents wrote that despite being at the pinnacle of power, they sometimes lacked full confidence in their executive decisions and, as a result, suffered occasional feelings of insecurity and self-doubt. So even famous and powerful individuals become discontent quickly if future goals are not continually established, pursued, and realized. Accomplishing X or Y, even when X or Y literally means winning the U.S. Presidency, will provide only a temporary emotional glow. President Nixon, in fact, described his disillusionment when, on the night of his 1972 re-election landslide, he inexplicably felt no pleasure or emotional excitement of any kind. By 1972, Nixon had already been President for four years and no longer derived self-esteem merely through being chief executive. Famous individuals, whether they are politicians, movie stars, athletes or whatever, do not permanently feel their fame in the way imagined by the factory worker or the housewife. Even the Queen of England would probably soon feel despondent if separated from relationships and challenging activities essential to her self-esteem. Likewise for us commoners. When people base their self-esteem on specific behaviors or accomplishments, they must constantly strive for, and perpetually achieve, new goals if their ego intoxication is to continue. Remember Key Point #2: When self-esteem is based on accomplishments, it must be earned repeatedly. It is never permanent. If self-esteem is realized through the successful completion of a particular task or goal, and if additional achievement must be eternally forthcoming, then it follows logically that all of us mortal human beings live in constant peril of losing our self-esteem: for at any moment we may fail to perform adequately our exalted task. Worse yet, we may neglect to maintain those character traits or the desired physical appearance which we have so thoroughly incorporated into our personal tabulation of self-worth. The football player, esteeming himself for his athletic ability, feels humiliated and selfloathing after repeatedly fumbling the ball. The college professor, priding herself on her eloquence in public debate, feels disgraced when her opponent's arguments are clearly superior to her own. The teenage boy, deriving self-esteem exclusively through his girlfriend's adoration, suffers the tortures of the damned when rejected by his beloved. It appears that the only theoretical means by which an individual could enjoy consistent self-esteem would be for him to become incapable of failure. He would, in addition, have to live in an environment where disappointment is impossible. He must, in other words, transcend his mortal limitations and become a godlike being, immune from innate human fallibility, and possessing virtual omniscience and omnipotence. He must reside in some kind of heaven, where no rejection or behavioral inadequacies can occur. Otherwise, his fragile self-esteem is vulnerable to human failure and weakness and to the terrestrial terrors impinging upon him from without. Dr. Albert Ellis, the innovative creator of Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), has suggested that "self-esteem" is simply a manifestation of what he calls a "Jehovah complex." According to Ellis, a person may observe that she has performed a certain task well, or that she possesses some desirable character trait; and these self-perceptions may be quite realistic and accurate. But the "Jehovah complex" rears its grandiose head when the individual follows up her flattering conclusions with an arrogant non sequitur or "magical leap" in her thinking. Instead of believing (accurately) that she is simply a person whose performance excelled or whose traits are commendable, she will globally rate herself as a superior person. She sees no distinction whatever between herself and her behavior; to her, they are one and the same. If her performance is good, then she becomes good. Since her achievement was superior, she considers herself a superior, godlike individual, far above the lowly slobs she defeated. She will, for a time, revel in self-esteem and feel much happier than if she concluded merely that her external behavior was superior. Unfortunately for the individual who is globally rating her entire worth on the basis of the behavior, her self-esteem will not be sustained for long. The person who feels noble and godlike today for succeeding, will feel equally hellish and self-despising tomorrow for the slightest failure. Her entire self-perceived "value" as a human being is determined by satisfying some external goal. And when she fails to achieve this majestic external goal (as she invariably will do from time to time), her life seems worthless and pointless to her. The successful individual concluded not only that she performed well, but also that she was transformed thereby into a superior human being. Likewise, the individual failing to achieve her goal may conclude not only that her performance was inadequate, but also that she herself is a failure as a human being. Instead of feeling moderately disappointed that she failed at her task, she feels utterly devastated that she is an "inferior" person. Sooner or later, the self-esteeming individual will pay the price for making her self-worth contingent upon outstanding achievement. Metaphorically at least, the universe will serve justice upon the sin of pride. There is a curious theory circulating that self-rating and striving for "self-respect" encourage moral behavior; and that unless a person condemns his entire self for any immoral acts, he soon becomes decadent. In fact, however, a person's "self-respect," far from promoting ethical standards, may actually predispose the offending individual to deny the immorality of his acts: for example, the preschooler he beat "learned a good lesson." The cab driver he murdered "deserved to die." The coed he raped "enjoyed it." The convenience store he robbed "didn't need the money." To preserve his own "self-respect," even the most heinous criminal can quickly rationalize excuses for his deplorable conduct. A philosophy of self-esteem, therefore, does not guarantee moral behavior. On the contrary, self-rating often encourages the individual to redefine morality in self-serving ways, to guarantee the survival of his selfrespect. The opposite of self-esteem is not self-hatred. In actuality, self-esteem and self-hatred are twin incarnations of the same underlying philosophy: that one must appraise himself in relation to his achievements. Self-esteem and self-hatred therefore are two sides of the same self-appraising coin. If you view yourself as exalted and lordly for your successes, then you will automatically view yourself as paltry and worthless when failing. It is a package deal: you cannot enjoy self-worship without very soon suffering self-damnation. The tacit logic upholding your self-esteem can just as easily document your abject worthlessness. The individual who lusts after self-esteem will forever ride an unstable emotional roller coaster, up and down, up and down. He may indeed soar quickly to great heights. But he will inevitably sink rapidly into the depths of despair and dejection, because it is a single philosophy, his philosophy of contingent self-rating, that produces both his positive and his negative self-image. Remember Key Point #3: The concept of self-esteem leads intermittently to self-damnation. Even if we grant that a compulsion for self-esteem occasionally produces adverse side effects, doesn't the average individual still derive much more benefit than harm from pursuing a positive self-image? Isn't the small price worth paying? The short answer to this question is no: the price usually is not worth paying. The expense we incur for esteeming ourselves is by no means limited to feelings of humiliation when we fail at something. If that were the case (that is, if the only unpleasant consequence of self-esteem were an occasional feeling of disgrace when failing), then one could legitimately argue that self-esteem often benefits individuals who are exceptionally successful, attractive, or talented. Artistic individuals, we say, are motivated by pride in their creative projects. If a person paints a breathtaking masterpiece or writes a poignant novel, then surely she will esteem herself; and it is this sought-for feeling of glorification and achievement that seems to inspire many creative pursuits. To a limited extent, the drive for self-esteem probably does spur some individuals to productive and creative activity. This reality, in fact, seems to be a popular "selling point" for self-esteem. Unfortunately, however, instead of stimulating genius and creativity, the theology of self-esteem more often results in severe behavioral inhibition and debilitating anxiety. With his entire self-worth at stake, the average individual will desperately avoid all "dangerous" situations in which his self-esteem is perceived to be at risk. Take, for example, the average-looking, average-intelligence single male, who feels romantically and sexually attracted to a woman of extraordinary brilliance. This gentleman may fantasize vividly about dating or marrying such a desirable woman, and his self-esteem would no doubt be temporarily elevated if his fantasies were realized. But this man's self-rating philosophy (i.e., his belief that self-worth flows from success) virtually guarantees that he will never befriend the woman he considers most desirable. Why? Because his precious self-esteem would be destroyed if he were rejected openly by such an accomplished female. He cannot risk the "danger." He will play it safe, asking out a less intelligent woman. This way, the likelihood of rejection will decline, and the threat to his self-esteem will diminish. This single male's ego, therefore, inhibited, rather than abetted, his search for cultured female companionship. If he simply forgot the "danger" to his pride (which of course is completely in his head and represents no actual danger in the empirical world), then he could telephone the woman he strongly desires and might indeed make her acquaintance. Should she rebuff his advances, he would naturally feel disappointed, but because his entire value as a human being is not in jeopardy, he would not feel ashamed or humiliated. When a person views herself as "worthless" and feels humiliated, she is then inclined to view herself as incapable of correcting her poor performances. She will then tend to give up and to rationalize her withdrawal from outside activities or interpersonal relationships. After all, she reasons, how could a worthless bum such as I succeed at anything truly significant? On the other hand, if an individual views her current behavior, rather than herself, as deficient, she will likely have the view that "through more practice and effort, I may in the future rectify my previously deficient behavior." Pause to ask yourself this question: Does your long nose or your poor complexion really prevent you from asking out potentially desirable partners? Or rather is it your fear of ego-deflation that deters you from asking? It would be beneficial for women, especially, to give careful thought to similar questions because, in our silly society, it is still considered more "risky" for a woman to ask out a man than vice versa. Likewise, our "self-esteem" inhibits us from participating in any activity in which failure is deemed disgraceful. And because failure in virtually any endeavor is deemed disgraceful by the self-esteeming individual, he becomes distinctly afraid to try anything unfamiliar. He passively goes through life doing what he's always done, rarely involving himself in enterprises and human relationships whose success is not guaranteed in advance. Far from inspiring productive behavior and social interaction, the concept of self-esteem is the most inhibiting philosophy imaginable. That "most men lead lives of quiet desperation" can perhaps be traced to our chilling fear of losing self-esteem and to our resulting tendency toward a mundane, routine, "safe" existence. Remember Key Point #4: The concept of self-esteem usually promotes social and behavioral inhibition. I don't mean to suggest that a philosophy of self-esteem inevitably leads to passive behavior; for clearly such an assertion would be absurd. Even the most timid person occasionally throws caution to the wind and accepts the challenge of new adventure. Tragically, however, this person's actual enjoyment of her bold adventure will usually be minimal. Her anxieties, moreover, will often be intense, for she still believes devoutly that her entire value as a human being depends upon her success at this new activity or relationship. And with so much at stake (i.e., her entire worth as a person), she cannot possibly enjoy the intrinsic pleasures of the moment. She lives in constant terror of "making a fool out of herself." Returning to our previous illustration: The average-looking, average-intelligence bachelor may indeed build up enough courage to telephone the beautiful and brilliant woman. But he will clutch the telephone nervously as he dials. His hands and forehead will sweat profusely as her number rings. And his heart will palpitate uncontrollably as she picks up the receiver. Regardless of how smoothly the conversation flows, he will derive little intrinsic pleasure from the experience, because he fears that at any moment he might say the wrong thing and his self-esteem would surely die a tortured death. Perversely, an individual's self-esteem-related anxiety usually hinders, rather than enhances, her progress toward her chosen goal, the goal which, ironically, she seeks to accomplish in order to merit self-esteem! So she thoroughly defeats herself by maintaining this silly ego-bolstering philosophy. Her anxieties sabotage her objectives, because she concentrates principally on how she is doing, rather than on what she is doing. Her drive for self-esteem can be described accurately as a built-in self-destruct mechanism. The male with erectile difficulties, for example, often creates for himself the specific sexual dysfunction he seeks to avoid so desperately. Instead of focusing in bed on his female partner, and thereby becoming sexually aroused, he obsessively monitors his own body for signs of potency. He must demonstrate his “manliness”; he must prove himself "worthy." He does not pleasurably concentrate his thinking on sexually exciting images; instead, he literally terrifies himself with exaggerated visions of sexual failure and the resulting insufferable humiliation. His drive for self-esteem therefore is an impediment, rather than an asset, in bed. If this individual stopped distracting himself with meaningless self-rating tabulations, he might find it considerably easier to focus attention on his girlfriend and thereby become satisfyingly aroused. But because of his egocentered fixation, his thoughts will converge only on himself and his holy self-esteem. The inexperienced public speaker also suffers self-esteem-related anxieties. She imagines herself becoming tongue-tied or failing to recall her memorized text. She sees ghastly images of the audience laughing at her and ridiculing her dismal performance. She foresees her face becoming red and her voice quivering. She thus concentrates, not on the content of her speech, but on the need to preserve her self-esteem by avoiding such embarrassments. She suffers anxiety because her self-esteem is in danger of being lost. And this same disquieting anxiety will render almost impossible a smooth, professional delivery of her speech. Remember Key Point #5: A compulsive drive for self-esteem leads to frequent anxiety. And self-esteem-related anxiety is an obstacle to achieving those goals essential to our self-esteem! We now find ourselves boxed in completely. If our self-worth depends upon external achievement, then naturally we believe that we must achieve. But if we must achieve, then our anxiety becomes so distressing and burdensome that we often withdraw from the activities and relationships that we might enjoy the most. We withdraw in dreadful fear of an ego-crushing failure or rejection. If, however, we do not withdraw, our self-esteemrelated anxiety often makes our behavior inept and our social relations inelegant; and when we perceive these behaviors and relationships to be faltering, we bestow upon ourselves, not self-esteem, but self-damnation. The self-damnation, in turn, makes us feel unworthy and incapable of future success. And since we are "therefore" incapable of ever achieving our chosen goal, we lose hope and withdraw once again from a potentially enjoyable part of living. Quite a pickle indeed! But can we somehow escape our boxed-in predicament? Is there an alternative to this self-defeating philosophy? Yes! We can help ourselves immeasurably toward greater happiness and emotional stability. We can fairly rapidly overcome our needless anxieties, while profoundly enriching our enjoyment of life. We can conquer our social and behavioral inhibitions with surprisingly meager effort. Yes, we can indeed annihilate our self-sabotaging philosophy, but only if we are willing to pay the price. That is the all-important point, so I'm going to say it twice. We definitely can prevail over anxiety and inhibition, but only if we are willing to make a sacrifice: surrendering our compulsive drive for self-esteem. There is no other way to help ourselves in this regard. We are easily misled, however. We simplemindedly think that we can get something for nothing: that somewhere there is a Garden of Eden, where bountiful fruit may be harvested without corresponding work or sacrifice. Through the physical sciences, we learn that energy cannot be created out of nothing. In economic theory, we know there is no "free lunch." It is therefore somewhat naive to propose that genuine emotional or psychological benefit may be realized without some expenditure of work or sacrifice. In my opinion, this is why the "positive self-image" manuals usually fail to help the reader. These books claim to remedy self-condemnation without extracting the corresponding sacrifice of self-esteem. The reader, in other words, is promised something for nothing. Since an individual temporarily enjoys an exhilarating euphoria when "esteeming himself," he may understandably be reluctant to sacrifice this intoxicating, positive selfimage. On the other hand, he will probably be quite eager to rid himself as quickly as possible of inhibition, anxiety, and feelings of self-deprecation when he fails or is rejected. He must therefore make a choice: His choice, however, is not a choice between self-esteem and self-condemnation, for both attitudes are inseparable manifestations of the same self-rating philosophy. Rather, his choice is whether he will (or will not) rate himself at all, positively or negatively. He must choose between having a self-image and having no self-image. Instead of labeling herself as honorable or as foolish, an individual can more accurately and specifically rate the efficiency or inefficiency of her external actions, a subtle yet critical difference in perception. Instead of speculating emptily that she is intrinsically noble or that she is intrinsically worthless, she can more scientifically view her outside behavior as advantageous or as disadvantageous to her chosen goals. She can, in other words, refuse to entertain any self-image. She can restrict herself to observing and evaluating the empirical universe, of which her behavior is a part, and forget about inventing and perpetuating any kind of self-image, which exists only as an egocentric vapor in her head. There is no law of science nor of psychology that requires an individual habitually to calculate her "self-value." She does not have to continually monitor her "worth." She can simply refuse to go along with the anxious, inhibited, selfappraising crowd. Let us go back to our illustration of the average-looking, average-intelligence male attracted to the brilliant and accomplished female. So long as he abstains from consciously rating himself, he can pursue the relationship even though success is far from guaranteed. If he is rejected, then his "ego" suffers no agony, though his romantic and sexual desires will, of course, be frustrated. If, on the contrary, he does consciously rate himself as a human being, then a rejection will be viewed as painful humiliation and as incontrovertible evidence of his essential worthlessness. So, remember Key Point #6: To overcome self-esteem-related anxiety and inhibition, recognize that your choice is not between self-esteem and selfcondemnation. Your choice, rather, is between establishing an overall selfimage and establishing no self-image. That is, you can choose to view your external actions and traits as desirable or undesirable, but abstain from esteeming or damning yourself as a whole. In practice, the average person appears to spend only a scant few moments each day consciously tabulating her "self-worth" (though these brief periods of self-appraisal are quite sufficient to establish and reinforce an overall psychological inclination toward self-rating.) She spends most of her hours, however, observing her external environment and trying to do something interesting or productive within that environment. If, then, she already spends most of her time not contemplating her self-worth, why can she not, through resolution and industry, eliminate virtually all of her self-rating? The answer, of course, is that she can eliminate her self-rating, once she recognizes that such an absence of self-image is possible and is, in fact, preferable to her frequent anxiety and inhibition. Other members of the animal kingdom do not seem to ruminate much over their "selfworth." One rarely sees a self-esteeming alligator or a self-despising kangaroo. Animals other than man seem completely content as egoless creatures, simply observing the outside world. They seem entirely free from the anxieties and hang-ups suffered so often by their self-centered human cousins. It may be convincingly argued that other animals are intellectually inferior to man and thus possess no capacity for self-esteem. Perhaps so, but the "dumb" animals also possess no capacity for astrology, for superstition, nor for bigotry. Neither do the "inferior" animals devote themselves fanatically to a crackpot religion. So it is amply apparent that the superior human intellect often invents and adheres to unhealthy philosophical systems. It is just possible that the philosophy of self-esteem fits neatly and properly into that category. David Mills is author of the book Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, available on Amazon.com. David claims to have no self-esteem whatever. His office is located at 2236 Washington Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia 25704. You may email David at millsdavid@hotmail.com. Comments on David Mills' "Overcoming Self-Esteem" by Albert Ellis, Ph.D. I am delighted that David Mills has taken off from some of my main ideas about human worth and self-esteem and has written this important essay. If people follow the views that he has presented, I cannot give them a guarantee but can give them a high degree of probability that they will make themselves less anxious and, as he shows, more achieving. Even if they achieve little during their lives, they will enable themselves to live more peacefully and happily with themselves and others. Again, in all probability! However, the solution to the problem of self-worth that David Mills gives -- rating only one's deeds, acts, and performances and not one's self, being, or essence -- is what I call the elegant solution. Because most humans seem to be born with a strong tendency to make misleading global evaluations of their "self," as well as to make fairly accurate specific evaluations of their performances, I have found clinically that my rationalemotive behavior therapy (REBT) clients often have great difficulty in not rating their self and in only rating their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in regard to the results they achieve by creating and engaging in these responses. I therefore teach most of them the "elegant" philosophic solution that David Mills has beautifully outlined; but I also give them the choice of "inelegant" or practical solution to their self-concept. Thus, somewhere during the first few sessions of REBT I say something like this to my clients: “You very likely were born and reared with both self-actualizing and self-defeating tendencies and you can use the former to overcome the latter. Self-actualizingly, you are born to think, to think about your thinking, and to think about thinking about your thinking. Consequently, whenever you defeat yourself, you can observe your conduct, think differently, and free yourself to change your feelings and your habits. But it's not easy and you'd better keep working at it! “Perhaps your main self-helping tendency is to sanely rate or evaluate what you do -- this is, whether your acts are ‘good’ and helpful or ‘bad’ and unhelpful. Without measuring your feelings and acts, you would not repeat the ‘good’ and not change the ‘bad’ ones. Unfortunately, however, you are also biologically and socially predisposed to rate your self, your being, your essence as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and, by using these global ratings, to get yourself into trouble. For you are not what you do, as general semanticist Alfred Korzybski pointed out in 1933. You are a person who does millions of acts during your life -- some ‘good’ and some ‘bad’ and some ‘indifferent.’ As a person, you are too complex and many-sided to rate yourself (or rate any other pluralistic human) and to do so totally, globally, or generally. When you make this kind of global rating of your ‘youness,’ you end up as a ‘good person,’ and presumably better than other people and that is a grandiose, godlike view. Or, more frequently, because you are indubitably fallible and imperfect, you view yourself as a "bad person," presumably undeserving, worthless, and incapable of changing your behaviors and of doing better. So self rating leads to deification or devil-ification. Watch it! and go back to only measuring what you do and not what you supposedly are. “If, however, you have difficulty refusing to rate your self, your being, you can arbitrarily convince yourself, ‘I am “good” or “okay” because I exist, because I am alive, because I am human.’ This is not an elegant solution to a problem of self-worth, because I (or anyone else) could reply, ‘But I think you are “bad” or “worthless” because you are human and alive.’ Which of us is correct? Neither of us: because we are both arbitrarily defining you as ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and our definitions are not really provable nor falsifiable. They are just that: definitions. “Defining yourself as ‘good,’ however, will give you much better results than believing that you are ‘bad’ or ‘rotten.’ Therefore, this inelegant conclusion works and is a fairly good practical or pragmatic solution to the problem of human ‘worth.’ So if you want to rate your self or your being, you can definitionally, tautologically, or axiomatically use this ‘solution’ to self-rating. Better yet, however, as I have pointed out in Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, Humanistic Psychotherapy, A Guide to Rational Living, and a number of my other writings, and as David Mills emphasizes in this essay, you can use the ‘elegant’ REBT solution to rating yourself. That is, give up all your ideas about selfesteem, stick only to those of unconditional acceptance, and choose to accept your self, your existence, your humanity whether or not you perform well, whether or not you are loved by significant others, and whether or not you suffer from school, work, sports, or other handicaps.” This is what I usually say to my therapy clients. As David Mills aptly points out, you can recognize that your absence of self-image is possible and is, in fact, preferable to frequent anxiety and inhibition. Your goal can be to enjoy, rather than to prove yourself, for the rest of your unself-esteeming life! Suggested Additional Materials • Bernard, M. Staying Rational in an Irrational World: Albert Ellis and Rational- Emotive Therapy. New York: Carol Publishing, 1986. • Dryden, W., & Gordon, J. Think Yourself to Happiness. London: Sheldon Press, 1991. • Ellis, A. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1962. • Ellis, A. Psychotherapy and the Value of a Human Being. New York: Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, 1972. • Ellis, A. Humanistic Psychotherapy: The Rational-Emotive Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. • Ellis, A. RET Abolishes Most of the Human Ego. New York: Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, 1976. • Ellis, A. Intellectual Fascism. (Pamphlet). New York: Institute for Rational- Emotive Therapy, 1982. • Ellis, A. How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable about Anything Yes, Anything! Secaucus, New Jersey: Lyle Stuart, 1988. • Ellis, A. Unconditionally Accepting Yourself and Others. (Audiocassette.) New York: Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, 1988. • Ellis, A., & Becker, I. A Guide to Personal Happiness. Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Books, 1982. • Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. A Dialogue with Albert Ellis: Against Dogma. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press, 1991. • Ellis, A., & Harper, R.A. A New Guide to Rational Living. Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Books, 1975. • Hauck, P. Overcoming the Rating Game. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. • Korzybski, A. Science and Sanity. San Francisco, CA: International Society of General Semantics, 1933. • Lazarus, A.A. Toward an Egoless State of Being. In A. Ellis & R. Grieger (Eds.), Handbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Vol. 1 (pp. 113-116). New York: Springer, 1977.

zdo I link archetypes to emotional states. And it is easier to feel the character of the archetype and emotional state. What we've learned so far is that the Inner Critic "feels" critical. The Orphan in its many forms "feels" fearful. The Ruler "feels" like discipline. The Caregiver "feels" like compassion. The Warrior "feels" like courage. And the Sage "feels" like impartiality. The power of using feeling state to identify the archetyal presence is that the feeling component of an emotion carries with it the sense of certainty and conviction. We will be using a process of memory enrichment to build these elements withint the self so that they become available to you. That will be occuring in class three. Did that address your guestion? Rande Howell

SIUYA Yes, with a qualifier The initial element addresses the funamentals of interrupting impulsive pattern. The elements of breathing and self soothing, once enriched, are then paired to a stress inoculation training module. That module creates a neural pathway that runs parallel to the impulsive one already present. The object is to train the brain to fire both based on the same stimuli. What happens is that the new conditioned pattern disrupts the old impulsive pattern. We actually practiced this in the first class. People with impulse problems really need to practice this element until the new behavior is triggered while trading and feel the building of arousal pressure. It's not a cure, but it does give the person a break in the action. In that break, and with practice, you can build a new way of working with impulse. Later the meaning behind the impulse is worked with. Often it is the fear of missing out and the current organization of meaning of the self that collude to hijack impartial thinking. Part of this impulse driven behavior is also imprinted into our human behavior repetoire. It is natural that we would want to chase a running object of interest, like my dog did the other day when he startled a deer. It took quite awhile for the excitory process to calm down and come back to my Come commands. In trading, that rarely is a good idea. The qualifier is this. In the stand alone program on breathing, self soothing, and stress inoculation, there is a far more rigorous approach taken where there is a workbook and a whole bunch of rote practice is scheduled to insure the building of the neural pathway. People taking the DTSOM course have to have the self discipline to maintain the rigor needed to truly hardwire the new neural pathway. That's why they are given a recording of the session. Rande Howell

gosu My answer was responsive to your inquiry. You may not have found my response to your query applicable to your intent. You appear to me much like the way I see a prosecuting attorney. They are not interested in getting at the truth. They are interested in conviction. And they never ask a question that they already don't know the answer to in an effort to corral a witness. Having spent time as an expert witness on the other side of their client, I came to respect them and recognize their value. And you end up in a court room where you don't get justice, you get a verdict. Not saying this is an accurate representation, but it is what I see though my biases. Money cannot be separated from the risk of trading so your distinction is, to me, is beside the point. That is what separates paper trading from live trading. It is the very meaning tied into the emotion that money has in the historical organization of the self that is being brought into play. It is this belief system that they bring to risk management and it determines whether they are playing a game of chance or are managing probabiity. Gambling compulsion is driven by the chemistry of euphoria or its potential. It is in the behaviorally induced delusional state that the person's thinking becomes highly distorted and they make bad decisions based on euphoric comtaminated thinking. By this definition, some people who trade actually do gamble. They chase the market with big dreams fed by euphoria chemistry. You will particularly see this in impulse trading and over trading. They chase illusion. Most traders act from fear, not euphoria. By this definition, it is not gambling. What separates them from being able to manage the uncertainty involved in live trading is that generally they have not been taught how to regulate emotion effectively nor build a psychology rooted in internal discipline and impartiality. These can be taught and developed. Gambling is treated as an addiction because the euphoria (very similar to the brain chemistry produced by cocaine) compromises rational brain chemistry and suddenly the brain will do anything to get more of the behaviorally induced drug. This is when the person steps over the line and moves into the addiction of gambling. I used my father as an example because, as a card counter, he was not gambling. Casinos are on the look out for them and weed these guys out. The other pilots around him were gambling. The discipline of his card playing was built from the external structure imposed upon him. It did not come from within himself, which in trading is essential. When he left the structure, he and my mother got sucked into a highly destructive pattern of behaviors that finally led to many years of alcholism, my committing both to a mental institution, then treatment, and finally into AA -- where they found a vechicle for external structure that allowed them to manage and maintain discipline. I'm pretty certain they would not have agreed with your take on having a good time. It was a rough ride and landing for a few moments of euphoria. And for your information, my father had extensive converations about his life's ups and downs with me before he died. This is where my comments came from. I did not psycho-analyze him -- what ever that means. When a trained professional therapist dx's somebody, it is done on the basis of observable behaviors that are consistent with the criterion of a particular category. It is not done on the basis of wild ungrounded suspicions. That is called projection. Last thing. The reason I choose not to work with a professional gambler really is about my own values. He was seeking to build a better psychology of bluffing. That is a place that I am not willing to go because I do not see the service to a greater good. I fully acknowledge that professional trading companies do in fact sucker (bluff) the unwary and fleece them everyday based on fear and euphoria (sometimes called sucker's greed). For the unwary, I don't call this gambling, but I do call them foolish. They need to take their blinders off and learn how to see in a way that allows them to negotiate the potential for reward and failure that is trading. So. It's time to get back to the topic. Rande Howell

gosu The uniqueness of trading is that self deception is much more rooted out if you accept the assumptions that you are creating your reality, that you trade your beliefs, and that your trading account is the litmus test of the effectiveness of the beliefs your bring to the challenges of life. Trading, for me, is simply life on steriods. The same delusions are present in gambling but they are more psychologically avoidable in the short term. Recently I declined working with a guy who was a professional gambler in LV for 7 years because I didn't assess that he was capable of making the distinction between gambling (real addiction to euphoria) and trading where I hold that both euphoria and fear are dangerous emotional states of mind. My father was a card counter, photographic memory -- a very dangerous man to get into a night of blackjack with. He came away with over $500,000 from his days as a fly boy in WW11 in London. That skill did not translate into a discipline beyond what the war forced on him. In 3 years back in the States, he blew that money (remember this is 1945 dollars) by euphoric high living. He had an external disciple imposed upon him. He did not have an internal disipline. After busting himself, he settled into the life of a stable aeronautical engineer. That life imposed an external discipline upon him where he did well. If he could have managed the euphoria by internal disipline, life would have been different. And he had no desire to take the bull by the horns and develop internal disipline. Much too tough a route. This is the same across countless domains. Until you develop internal discipline, you drift in life rather than having a say-so in the navagation of life. Trading is no different than any other domain in this respect. The difference is that self delusion is very painful in trading and you can't fool yourself without inflicting ready-to-hand pain as evidence of your acting and bringing forth in trading. Rande Howell

We hold different assumptions about the development of beliefs. I hold that our brain is born into a historical circumstance to which it adapts the "becoming us" into a creature (complete with personality in humans) that offers a high degree of survival in the short term. Because it is successful in the short term (emotional brain criterion), the successful strategy is wired into the neural pathways so that it becomes automatic and familiar -- and beyond our awareness. In trading this historial patterning is brought into bold relief, and depending on the observer of the circumstance, an interpretation (or explanation) is brought forth. Usually, because the randomly successful initial pattern is so hardened as a perceptual pathway, do we ever see that it is only a particular organization of the self that we are being witness to. This is the separation between a smart animal and a human being for me. When we hold attachment to our historical patterns, change does seem to shatter the self. My view is that the current organization of the self is being challenged and the person does not manisfest the courage to push through the resulting uncertainty where a new organization of the perceptual map can be convened. One that is more effective for the long term rather than for the short term. This is where emotional regulation is essential to the process of re-organization of the self. Being about to regulate the intensity of an emotional out break at the entry into uncertainty, allows the person to gain access to the historical internal dialog where our self limiting beliefs have taken root. At one time those beliefs were functional for the mandate of the brain for survival. When exposed to the uncertainty of trading, they are self limiting. And a new way of perceiving needs to be developed in order that trading mind can move from fear to calm authority. There is a little discord as you move from one strata to another, much like breaking the sound barrier. But when you get on the other side, there is another world. Rande Howell

Dear Lab Sample of One I'm getting folks talking to me directly through my website. I keep encouraging them to post their comments on TL. Not sure if they feel safe or what. Trading does not allow "issues" to fade away as in other domains of life. I hold that they are eventuallly transfromed from a liability into an asset with healing and transformation. Behind the veneer of the vast majority of traders lies a world of pain and suffering that they acknowledge only in the domain of trading. This is the very fears that has to be embraced and mastered before the mind moves from interpreting uncertainty as fear. The second session opens this veil so that the trader can see what is operating in the mind -- so that he can do something about it. Being blind to it keeps you in the prison. Fortunately, starting in session 3, we get to the empowered elements of the self that are going to be brought into awareness as part of your conscious internal dialog. Ultimately, the internal dialog, through the obervation of your thoughts, gives voice to your self limiting beliefs. It is those beliefs that are doing your trading. It may be uncomfortable acknowledging self limiting beliefs, but it is a lot better than letting them control your trading. Rande Howell

We see though very different assumptions. The assumption I hold is that there is no absolute "you". Instead "you" is the current organization of the self held in place by the pattern making and maintaining directives of our brain. I find the self is quite fluid and re-organizable. This provides the hope that transformation of the self delivers. I've never met a recovering alcholic that wants to be the same "you" that produced the hell call alcholism. But out of that hell and re-organization of the self through the process of AA, a new self emerges. One that no longer destroys the self, but instead grows the self. Same as in trading. You do have to be in enough pain and ready for change to make it happen though. Lots of traders can easily be in this position. Rande Howell

Amen. Issues do not go away as if by a magic bullet (but this fantasy sure sells a lot of blue sky). However, Bringing courage and self compassion (rather than avoidance) to the "issue", the meaning of the "issue" is transformed from a liability to a hard earned asset. Rande Howell

It's a great place. Fundamentally what all this is about is how the "mind" emerges from the brain. Emotion and thinking are deeply inner connected, and as we learn more about the archetecture of the brain, the more we are able to work with mind. Lesson One is all about learning to manage the emotional brain (where all that intuition comes from) so that the thinking brain has the right set of emotions to trade from. Rande Howell