Developing Trader's State of Mind Discussion

Tradewinds · October 27, 2011

Here is a link to the group I just set up. People can join only with my approval. Only group members can post to the group. (Private discussion group) If someone does not want to post to the private group, they can simply make a post here. Post will not be approved, and will be posted immediately, but I won't hesitate to delete anything that I feel is not constructive.

TradersStateOfMind : Trader's State of Mind

I set the group up, so I'm the owner. I run the show. But if anyone wants to be a moderator, or become owner of the group, just let me know.

I just made the first post as the owner of the group. Posts are not open to the public, only members can view posts. Members must be approved. The yahoo group is not meant to be a substitute for this thread, or a diversion from this forum. It's a place for members only to be part of a private group dedicated to this subject.

zdo · October 27, 2011

Rande and participants,

Do you realize how few are going ‘all the way’ with this? Of those who even start, many will drop. Some will limit seeing the first session as simply ‘emotional intervention’ techniques, the 2nd session as only ‘assessment intervention’. etc… (great skills in and of themselves btw, but…). Others conclude the process doesn’t directly lead to ‘riches’. Other will get triggered deeply back into defensiveness patterns… (list goes on… feel free to add more to it folks)

How do I know? I’ve done versions of every single one of them multiple times and am at risk of ‘using’ the last excuse listed above right now. I think it was CGJ who said many issues never really heal, they just developmentally fade from relevance and drop out of focus and awareness. Seems I have a couple related to the list of four from last night that ‘should’ have faded long ago. They do fade from sharp awareness but are still there waiting in the darkness for trigger moments like last night…

lab sample of one,

zdo

Tradewinds · October 27, 2011

Rande and participants,

Do you realize how few are going ‘all the way’ with this? Of those who even start, many will drop.

I don't doubt that there is a high attrition rate, as with many things. I'm a perfectionist, so I want real good answers. But, in this life, good answers seem difficult to find. Out of a "sea" of information, one thing may fit a problem well.

From class two, I've realized that I don't confront those negative thoughts and beliefs that are so entrenched in my thinking and feelings. For me, the concept of confronting the negative thoughts and beliefs really gave me a feeling of hope that I can make a change.

Realizing that I do NOT confront negative and false feelings, thoughts and beliefs is just a simple fact. It's very "straight forward", very basic, and a real "no brainer", but even so, it's an issue that is not being addressed. It makes sense to me, and if it makes sense to me, and it's a well defined problem, and it's not real complicated, then I feel like I've got something I can "work with". It's a starting point. I can simply keep working on the simple reality that I let negative and even untruthful thoughts guide my life, and it really doesn't make any sense to give them so much power. That makes sense to me. it's not that I'm a believer in positive thinking. I think some people use the concept of positive thinking to avoid facing the negative. So it just turns into an exercise in self-deception. BUT, there is no point in letting negative and untruthful thoughts and feelings control me. That's just reality to me. I can accept that.

It's okay for me to be confrontational with negative and untruthful feelings and thoughts about myself. For whatever reason, I find this truth makes me feel better, more upbeat, and feel like I now have something that I can work on that will really make a difference.

I think that confronting these things in myself is extremely important. If I had not taken class 2, then I would not have gotten this nugget of truth that could be 'key' in making a real difference. So in that sense, it's invaluable. It gives me something to 'latch on to'. I do what I can, and stay open to whatever good answers may come my way. I won't be the perfect student, and I don't try to be. (I'm a perfectionist, with streaks of pragmatism) :rofl:

I plan on replaying the classes multiple times.

steve46 · October 28, 2011

Rande and participants,

Do you realize how few are going ‘all the way’ with this? Of those who even start, many will drop. Some will limit seeing the first session as simply ‘emotional intervention’ techniques, the 2nd session as only ‘assessment intervention’. etc… (great skills in and of themselves btw, but…). Others conclude the process doesn’t directly lead to ‘riches’. Other will get triggered deeply back into defensiveness patterns… (list goes on… feel free to add more to it folks)

How do I know? I’ve done versions of every single one of them multiple times and am at risk of ‘using’ the last excuse listed above right now. I think it was CGJ who said many issues never really heal, they just developmentally fade from relevance and drop out of focus and awareness. Seems I have a couple related to the list of four from last night that ‘should’ have faded long ago. They do fade from sharp awareness but are still there waiting in the darkness for trigger moments like last night…

lab sample of one,

zdo

I find this comment very interesting. From my recent experience trying to teach others to trade as professionals I see folks struggling with similar issues. knowing that emotionally we are more similar than we are different I find myself suggesting ways that my students can identify and give form to the emotional challenges they face....

With regard to the idea of issues never really healing I can concur. Human behavior being what it is, the tendency is to bury our emotional issues hoping they "go away"....of course they do not and trading is the arena where they are likely to be activated and come back to haunt us (sorry couldn't resist the halloween imagery)....ordinarily I would start the next sentence with "I think", but at this point in time, "I am sure" that the primary reason so many fail to obtain success as professionals is related unresolved emotional issues, and if there is a secondary reason, it is the lack of persistence or the unwillingness of the candidate to continue to work on themselves....

Good luck folks

Steve

johnw · October 28, 2011

"I am sure" that the primary reason so many fail to obtain success as professionals is related unresolved emotional issues, and if there is a secondary reason, it is the lack of persistence or the unwillingness of the candidate to continue to work on themselves....

Good luck folks

Steve

My take on this is that people fail because their best shot is quite simply not good enough.

If they are of average intelligence or more and they are not succeeding then they must decide 'to do what ever it takes' or quit.

And here lies the guts of the problem, because very few People have ever taken themselves anyway near their potential and so they are simply unaware of what they are capable of.

Then they become frustrated and the harder they push the more they push themselves away from their objective, rather than drawing their objective towards them.

This is the YING YANG of life .... notice I did not say Ying AND Yang because YY exist simultaneously and create 'balance'

Words are one way of communicating with each other, but they also have the power to awaken feelings within ourselves.

For example ..... the word 'challenge' to me conjures up thoughts of climbing Mountains and being cold and uncomfortable in the process... many decades ago this did not concern me although I never climbed mountains and never will .... it is funny how our minds work.

'Adventure' however gives me a warm fuzzy ..... thoughts of sailing through the Caribbean or South Pacific come into play along with hot lazy summers in Tuscany ... these are things I have done, but this is not important... it is the association between the word and the feeling that matters.

What is important is to atune our minds to pleasant thoughts and construct our journey to be pleasurable to ourselves and all those around us.

In no way does it lessen the workload ... in fact it increases, but the word 'work' fades out to be replaced by a different linked feeling and so the process goes on.... it is a never ending journey.

If you are a struggling hard working Person trying to learn The Art of The Trade, then I would suggest that you let go and relax back into the journey.

Turn the PC off ... it is a tool that should work for you and yet most People allow it to lead them around by the nose.

Figure out what you are striving for, before you log into the Markets each day otherwise you will be lead into dancing in circles.

Forget 10,000 hours of screentime ... that is a stupid number and so is 95% failure rate.

You are 100% of you ... that is all that matters.

Rande Howell · October 28, 2011

I find this comment very interesting. From my recent experience trying to teach others to trade as professionals I see folks struggling with similar issues. knowing that emotionally we are more similar than we are different I find myself suggesting ways that my students can identify and give form to the emotional challenges they face....

With regard to the idea of issues never really healing I can concur. Human behavior being what it is, the tendency is to bury our emotional issues hoping they "go away"....of course they do not and trading is the arena where they are likely to be activated and come back to haunt us (sorry couldn't resist the halloween imagery)....ordinarily I would start the next sentence with "I think", but at this point in time, "I am sure" that the primary reason so many fail to obtain success as professionals is related unresolved emotional issues, and if there is a secondary reason, it is the lack of persistence or the unwillingness of the candidate to continue to work on themselves....

Good luck folks

Steve

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

Rande Howell · October 28, 2011

My take on this is that people fail because their best shot is quite simply not good enough.
If they are of average intelligence or more and they are not succeeding then they must decide 'to do what ever it takes' or quit.

And here lies the guts of the problem, because very few People have ever taken themselves anyway near their potential and so they are simply unaware of what they are capable of.

Then they become frustrated and the harder they push the more they push themselves away from their objective, rather than drawing their objective towards them.

This is the YING YANG of life .... notice I did not say Ying AND Yang because YY exist simultaneously and create 'balance'

Words are one way of communicating with each other, but they also have the power to awaken feelings within ourselves.

For example ..... the word 'challenge' to me conjures up thoughts of climbing Mountains and being cold and uncomfortable in the process... many decades ago this did not concern me although I never climbed mountains and never will .... it is funny how our minds work.

'Adventure' however gives me a warm fuzzy ..... thoughts of sailing through the Caribbean or South Pacific come into play along with hot lazy summers in Tuscany ... these are things I have done, but this is not important... it is the association between the word and the feeling that matters.

What is important is to atune our minds to pleasant thoughts and construct our journey to be pleasurable to ourselves and all those around us.

In no way does it lessen the workload ... in fact it increases, but the word 'work' fades out to be replaced by a different linked feeling and so the process goes on.... it is a never ending journey.

If you are a struggling hard working Person trying to learn The Art of The Trade, then I would suggest that you let go and relax back into the journey.

Turn the PC off ... it is a tool that should work for you and yet most People allow it to lead them around by the nose.

Figure out what you are striving for, before you log into the Markets each day otherwise you will be lead into dancing in circles.

Forget 10,000 hours of screentime ... that is a stupid number and so is 95% failure rate.

You are 100% of you ... that is all that matters.

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

Rande Howell · October 28, 2011

Rande and participants,

Do you realize how few are going ‘all the way’ with this? Of those who even start, many will drop. Some will limit seeing the first session as simply ‘emotional intervention’ techniques, the 2nd session as only ‘assessment intervention’. etc… (great skills in and of themselves btw, but…). Others conclude the process doesn’t directly lead to ‘riches’. Other will get triggered deeply back into defensiveness patterns… (list goes on… feel free to add more to it folks)

How do I know? I’ve done versions of every single one of them multiple times and am at risk of ‘using’ the last excuse listed above right now. I think it was CGJ who said many issues never really heal, they just developmentally fade from relevance and drop out of focus and awareness. Seems I have a couple related to the list of four from last night that ‘should’ have faded long ago. They do fade from sharp awareness but are still there waiting in the darkness for trigger moments like last night…

lab sample of one,

zdo

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

zdo · October 28, 2011

re:

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.

I appreciate any efforts you are putting into getting us in touch with each other. Maybe invite them to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TradersStateOfMind/

see post #25 of this thread if link didn't come through

focused, committed - no nonsense there… thx again

re

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.

and... “The threshold of pain is the threshold of performance”

..not about beliefs about my self at this time, but...

I'm leaving for the weekend wondering how I could develop some mindfulness of how each of my market beliefs / biases gets built. The largely unconconsious process of constructing a bias proceeds in 'steps' ( like mysterious quanta) from an imperceptible idea to limbo possibility, to a full (sometimes operational and sometimes costly and unnecessary? ) belief

... and then ( whether its right or wrong, btw) ultimately to a shattering

... rinse and repeat.

Have a great weekend all.

zdo

gosu · October 29, 2011

* * *

Trading does not allow "issues" to fade away as in other domains of life. * * *

Why is trading unique in your OPINION? And I do emphasize the opinion part. Is it because of the money component? If so, then would your opinion change were only prizes or bragging rights involved, like say for a video game high score? As a kid I grew up in the golden age of arcades and spent a large part of my teen years playing video games. I've traded electronically for almost 13 years now and I can't think of a better way of describing it than as a video game. The point is I don't think learning to trade is that much different than learning other things that require knowledge, skill, and experience.

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.

Are you sure the world of pain and suffering you are seeing is unique to trading? Because it sure sounds like you are describing the domain of GAMBLING. Do you acknowledge that there are people who call themselves "traders" and describe what they do as "trading" but really they are just gambling in the markets? Would your current beliefs about the efficacy of your approach be the same if the people taking your course were failed poker players? Would you agree that even though poker has a skill component, most people are unsuited to pursue it full-time and are purely gambling?

Rande Howell · October 29, 2011

re:

I appreciate any efforts you are putting into getting us in touch with each other. Maybe invite them to TradersStateOfMind : Trader's State of Mind

see post #25 of this thread if link didn't come through

focused, committed - no nonsense there… thx again

re

and... “The threshold of pain is the threshold of performance”

..not about beliefs about my self at this time, but...

I'm leaving for the weekend wondering how I could develop some mindfulness of how each of my market beliefs / biases gets built. The largely unconconsious process of constructing a bias proceeds in 'steps' ( like mysterious quanta) from an imperceptible idea to limbo possibility, to a full (sometimes operational and sometimes costly and unnecessary? ) belief

... and then ( whether its right or wrong, btw) ultimately to a shattering

... rinse and repeat.

Have a great weekend all.

zdo

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

Rande Howell · October 29, 2011

Why is trading unique in your OPINION? And I do emphasize the opinion part. Is it because of the money component? If so, then would your opinion change were only prizes or bragging rights involved, like say for a video game high score? As a kid I grew up in the golden age of arcades and spent a large part of my teen years playing video games. I've traded electronically for almost 13 years now and I can't think of a better way of describing it than as a video game. The point is I don't think learning to trade is that much different than learning other things that require knowledge, skill, and experience.

Are you sure the world of pain and suffering you are seeing is unique to trading? Because it sure sounds like you are describing the domain of GAMBLING. Do you acknowledge that there are people who call themselves "traders" and describe what they do as "trading" but really they are just gambling in the markets? Would your current beliefs about the efficacy of your approach be the same if the people taking your course were failed poker players? Would you agree that even though poker has a skill component, most people are unsuited to pursue it full-time and are purely gambling?

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

johnw · October 29, 2011

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

Hi Rande,

I think the difference lies in the words [terminology]

You are a Professional and Trading Psychology is is your chosen field....I am home schooled and home grown but never the less The Art of Trading is my chosen field ... so we are connected and have an understanding of each others profession, but I am very much in your backyard in terms of expression and terminology.

I suspect that your 'Self'' is my 'You' and your 'Fluid' is my 'Journey' and it is more than possible that there are others here who are in the same boat as me when it comes to the selective terminology that so aptly expresses and describes your Profession.

My belief is that we need to step outside ourselves and line up our feelings so that ALL the ducks are traveling together on our journey ....apart of which in this case is to become professional and therefore successful in The Art of The Trade.

Yes, I believe that at the outset of this journey there is pain from confrontation and the further off course we have sailed, then the greater the pain ... when we let go of old beliefs and embrace the knowledge that we are traveling in the unknown and have always been in this situation, then the pain ceases ... when the pain stops the unknown unfolds in the sense that we relax into the security of consciousness ... all sorts of good things open up and become available to us when this happens.

gosu · October 29, 2011

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

Hi Rande, after reading your reply 3 times I still don't know if you were responsive to my questions.

Regarding my first question, it seems to me you are saying that trading is unique in that self-deception is much more rooted out than in other activities because in trading there is a lot of pain associated with self-delusion. I infer the pain you focus on is from the loss of money. My question was, what if the money part were removed from trading? Would this make it too different from the real thing to be considered trading? Then let's say we call it an arcade video game played just for fun and name it "Follow the Leader."

The game comes with no instructions; yet it's a popular game and there are lots of people playing it. However, you see that almost all of them suck. Even so, do you think someone can learn to get really good at it without delving into all the emotional baggage he may be carrying from outside the arcade? If your answer is "yes" then there's nothing unique about learning how to get good at the game of Follow the Leader. Again, this leaves aside the question of whether the removal of the money aspect makes the game too far removed from the real thing.

With regard to my second question, you went into psychoanalyzing your dad you portray as a gambler who lacked "internal discipline," whatever that means. You say he "blew" $500,000 (in 1945 money) on "euphoric high living." I don't know what you mean by "euphoric high living," and I don't see what's so bad about living large if one can afford to if that's what you meant, but there is obvious resentment on your part. In any case, that's all interesting but not responsive to what I was asking.

My question was, do you think there are people who call themselves "traders" and describe what they are doing as "trading" who are in fact just gambling? And by "gambling" I don't mean your definition of a "real addiction to euphoria" but just the simple case of someone who doesn't play with much knowledge or skill and expects to win in a skill game. The analogy I used was poker.

The fact that you turned away a "professional gambler" (whatever that means) because you believed he couldn't tell the difference between gambling and trading tells me that you do see a distinction between the two. So let's just take that additional step and consider the people who call themselves "traders" or "professional traders" and whether they are indeed just gambling regardless of what they call themselves. How can you tell that the "traders" in your course aren't just merely gambling (showing little skill or knowledge about the game), which would explain much of the failure they've experienced?

Rande Howell · October 31, 2011

Hi Rande, after reading your reply 3 times I still don't know if you were responsive to my questions.

Regarding my first question, it seems to me you are saying that trading is unique in that self-deception is much more rooted out than in other activities because in trading there is a lot of pain associated with self-delusion. I infer the pain you focus on is from the loss of money. My question was, what if the money part were removed from trading? Would this make it too different from the real thing to be considered trading? Then let's say we call it an arcade video game played just for fun and name it "Follow the Leader."

The game comes with no instructions; yet it's a popular game and there are lots of people playing it. However, you see that almost all of them suck. Even so, do you think someone can learn to get really good at it without delving into all the emotional baggage he may be carrying from outside the arcade? If your answer is "yes" then there's nothing unique about learning how to get good at the game of Follow the Leader. Again, this leaves aside the question of whether the removal of the money aspect makes the game too far removed from the real thing.

With regard to my second question, you went into psychoanalyzing your dad you portray as a gambler who lacked "internal discipline," whatever that means. You say he "blew" $500,000 (in 1945 money) on "euphoric high living." I don't know what you mean by "euphoric high living," and I don't see what's so bad about living large if one can afford to if that's what you meant, but there is obvious resentment on your part. In any case, that's all interesting but not responsive to what I was asking.

My question was, do you think there are people who call themselves "traders" and describe what they are doing as "trading" who are in fact just gambling? And by "gambling" I don't mean your definition of a "real addiction to euphoria" but just the simple case of someone who doesn't play with much knowledge or skill and expects to win in a skill game. The analogy I used was poker.

The fact that you turned away a "professional gambler" (whatever that means) because you believed he couldn't tell the difference between gambling and trading tells me that you do see a distinction between the two. So let's just take that additional step and consider the people who call themselves "traders" or "professional traders" and whether they are indeed just gambling regardless of what they call themselves. How can you tell that the "traders" in your course aren't just merely gambling (showing little skill or knowledge about the game), which would explain much of the failure they've experienced?

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

Edited October 31, 2011 by Rande Howell

gosu · October 31, 2011

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

Hi Rande, you did guess right that my prior career was as an attorney, but not as a prosecutor or even as a litigator. I have never cross examined anyone or taken part in any trial. I spent most of my time at my desk in a fancy office making rich multinationals even richer by gaming the tax code. Regardless, I do know how to think and read critically. Moreover, I value truth and knowing very much, far more than money, and perhaps that is why I persisted in trading during the difficult times.

If you feel yourself on the heat seat because of my questions, it is because you have put yourself there. You encouraged me to ask. No doubt you know that my questions are not typical of the ones you encounter from your customers. I do know just a little bit about discretionary trading.

Regarding your father's history, I have no comments about that and frankly consider it irrelevant to anything I asked. You are the one who brought it up and now dishonestly attribute to me the view that your parents had a good time.

I do not care to get caught up in your drama. If you want to discuss trading, then discuss trading. However, don't expect softball questions from a person who has traveled a much different path--one of actual trading--from the one you are selling as an expert of something other than trading.

If you can't take the heat, don't invite it.

SIUYA · October 31, 2011

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 andimpartiality. 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 dont have such a fear of pulling the trigger, more the impulse problem when I have it, and yet in no way am I a gambler - I have no regard for gambling/betting/horses/cards (it seems un-Australian to say that with the Melbourne cup on tomorrow)....and while not doing the webinar this time as I am not trading currently, would you think that the webinar you are currently conducting might have positive help for those with impulsive tendencies rather than fear based???? or are different methods/ideas/practices used.....or is impulsiveness just another disguised fear

gosu · October 31, 2011

I dont have such a fear of pulling the trigger, more the impulse problem when I have it, and yet in no way am I a gambler - I have no regard for gambling/betting/horses/cards (it seems un-Australian to say that with the Melbourne cup on tomorrow)....and while not doing the webinar this time as I am not trading currently, would you think that the webinar you are currently conducting might have positive help for those with impulsive tendencies rather than fear based???? or are different methods/ideas/practices used.....or is impulsiveness just another disguised fear

Fear is just not the overriding emotion in trading that it's made out to be in this thread. How can "fear of pulling the trigger" enter the mind of a person who has experienced pulling the trigger 10,000 times? The two states of mind to avoid are: (1) thinking oneself a genius, which leads to usurping the market's role; and (2) complacency, which leads to inattention and lack of diligence when action is required. Both states of mind can lead to longer-duration losses that really do a lot of damage to a trader's account and mental health.

Rande Howell · October 31, 2011

I dont have such a fear of pulling the trigger, more the impulse problem when I have it, and yet in no way am I a gambler - I have no regard for gambling/betting/horses/cards (it seems un-Australian to say that with the Melbourne cup on tomorrow)....and while not doing the webinar this time as I am not trading currently, would you think that the webinar you are currently conducting might have positive help for those with impulsive tendencies rather than fear based???? or are different methods/ideas/practices used.....or is impulsiveness just another disguised fear

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

zdo · October 31, 2011

I almost always enter a smattering of fx range breakout orders on Friday. This morning I woke up to a ‘windfall’ from japan and england.

Then all the daytrades went off without a single hitch except for one - and that one just went off (at a reduced profit) just a few minutes ago.

When I have a great day, just from general memory I am aware that of many possible

bifurcations for the next day

One possibility is anxiety that there is a script running in the darkness that will ambush me tomorrow

Another possibility is over confidence and complacency

Another possibility – no carryover at all

(Note: The above list is not inclusive / complete.)

I’m gifted at spotting polarity dynamics - but I’m struggling with the ‘anthro…’ archetypes.

The question is how do I tie these (and other unlisted possibilities) to “members of the committee” ???

Rande Howell · October 31, 2011

I almost always enter a smattering of fx range breakout orders on Friday. This morning I woke up to a ‘windfall’ from japan and england.
Then all the daytrades went off without a single hitch except for one - and that one just went off (at a reduced profit) just a few minutes ago.

When I have a great day, just from general memory I am aware that of many possible

bifurcations for the next day

One possibility is anxiety that there is a script running in the darkness that will ambush me tomorrow

Another possibility is over confidence and complacency

Another possibility – no carryover at all

(Note: The above list is not inclusive / complete.)

I’m gifted at spotting polarity dynamics - but I’m struggling with the ‘anthro…’ archetypes.

The question is how do I tie these (and other unlisted possibilities) to “members of the committee” ???

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

Rande Howell · October 31, 2011

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.

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.

SIUYA · October 31, 2011

Fear is just not the overriding emotion in trading that it's made out to be in this thread. How can "fear of pulling the trigger" enter the mind of a person who has experienced pulling the trigger 10,000 times? The two states of mind to avoid are: (1) thinking oneself a genius, which leads to usurping the market's role; and (2) complacency, which leads to inattention and lack of diligence when action is required. Both states of mind can lead to longer-duration losses that really do a lot of damage to a trader's account and mental health.

that is why I asked the question....my fear only rises when the trade size rises largr than it should- or there is that uneasy feeling in the stomach every now and again when something smells wrong - and so it should. I am more interested if the processes used by Rande for re-mapping the brain for fear are the same....his response appears in part to say yes....as I agree with your two points...genius I rarely ever am (only after the fact ), complacency and impulsive would be my issue....but not fear.

The problem with impulse is just that it is impulse..... often the button is hit before the thought! and does not occur all the time - just you know after the fact when its been done - often with enough experience it can be extremely helpful to be a bit impulsive in my own experience. A bit like taking a hunting dog on a hunt - you want it to act on its impulses, however you still want it to re-act with discipline when the master calls

However....I still continue to follow the thread with interest, and apologies if you are more focused on fear Rande in this particular session....yet clearly you think the methods you teach are clearly able to be used for other issues as well. thanks.

gosu · October 31, 2011

that is why I asked the question....my fear only rises when the trade size rises largr than it should- or there is that uneasy feeling in the stomach every now and again when something smells wrong - and so it should. I am more interested if the processes used by Rande for re-mapping the brain for fear are the same....his response appears in part to say yes....as I agree with your two points...genius I rarely ever am (only after the fact ), complacency and impulsive would be my issue....but not fear.

The problem with impulse is just that it is impulse..... often the button is hit before the thought! and does not occur all the time - just you know after the fact when its been done - often with enough experience it can be extremely helpful to be a bit impulsive in my own experience. A bit like taking a hunting dog on a hunt - you want it to act on its impulses, however you still want it to re-act with discipline when the master calls

However....I still continue to follow the thread with interest, and apologies if you are more focused on fear Rande in this particular session....yet clearly you think the methods you teach are clearly able to be used for other issues as well. thanks.

I share your viewpoint that fear or uneasiness can actually be useful in trading.

With regard to impulse trades, I put this in the category of deciding to take action without going through the preceding steps of gathering a complete data set and then analyzing it. Often it is an action based off one indication and amounts to nothing more than a hunch. I do not dismiss hunches but I've found it is better to follow the routine of gathering data and analyzing and only then deciding and taking action.

In any case, perhaps this is beyond the scope of this thread as dealing with fear in trading seems to be the primary focus. I wonder, however, if any minds would be changed if people who actually trade came forward and stated that fear is not the primary culprit of their losses?

I've witnessed a few blow outs and I can report that not one of the traders showed any fear; in fact it was completely the opposite, as they were very calm while holding onto losing trades day after day until the margin call arrived. One guy I remember seemed to just give up and resigned himself to either get the margin call or be proven correct on the trade. He just sat in front of his screens day after day calmly watching his position without taking any action. I think a bit of fear would have helped him take the loss.

MightyMouse · November 1, 2011

I've witnessed a few blow outs and I can report that not one of the traders showed any fear; in fact it was completely the opposite, as they were very calm while holding onto losing trades day after day until the margin call arrived. One guy I remember seemed to just give up and resigned himself to either get the margin call or be proven correct on the trade. He just sat in front of his screens day after day calmly watching his position without taking any action. I think a bit of fear would have helped him take the loss.

True, it is not the tremble in your boots type fear, but it is the deer in the headlights type fear. Nonetheless, it is fear.

Fear in trading is more like intuition for traders who are taking risks that are too big for their accounts. When one takes risks that are too big, his mind's built in accounting program is letting him know that he is heading down a destructive path.

To remedy the situation, one needs to use much better risk management.

Sign In

Welcome Guests

Developing Trader's State of Mind Discussion

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Join the conversation