Yes, I think that is one of the factors that predisposes some beginning traders to high-win-rate methods. The other persective is to be found in trading textbooks, all the way from beginners' books like Tharp's Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom to more advanced ones like Michael Harris's Profitability and Systematic Trading, in both of which the authors explain - with examples - why it's actually easier for most aspiring traders to become profitable, overall, with lower-win-rate systems than higher-win-rate ones. Statistics and probability as applied to trading can certainly be pretty counter-intuitive. Ultimately, though, win-rates don't really matter: expectancy matters.
Noted. I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't matter at all, which is why I worded it the way I did, qualifying it with "ultimately" and "really", and drawing the comparison with the essential parameter of expectancy. Granted that win-rates below about 25% are potentially risky for beginning traders, because they generally lack the understanding to select position-sizing appropriate to the length of the foreseeable losing runs and losing patches, and that sky-high win-rates (for all of the smoothness of their equity-curves) might always conceal potential/looming disasters ... but with win-rates between "reasonable limits", I contend that it's far more important, helpful and worthwhile, overall, for aspiring traders to concentrate on expectancy than on win rates. And that authors like Tharp, Chande, Harris and others are quite right to emphasise this.