There was a lovely little book written by Eric Berne published before most people alive today were born. It is called "Games People Play." You play a mean hard game of "Yes, But." Duref just plays more subtle games, is all.
Actually, I wept at the discovery that most posters on ET are loonier than I am. So I made it my calling to minister to them. That was easy to accomplish because I am the only trading shrink in the world who actually trades. All the rest are blind men trying to teach reading.
Lonely as in they have no trading mentors? Lonely as in they need somebody to hold them and tell them that everything is going to be ok?
This is the Wikipedia Summary of the book: Summary In the first half of the book, Berne introduces transactional analysis as a way of interpreting social interactions. He describes three roles or ego states, known as the Parent, the Adult, and the Child, and postulates that many negative behaviors can be traced to switching or confusion of these roles. He discusses procedures, rituals, and pastimes in social behavior, in light of this method of analysis. For example, a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling 'parent' will often engender self-abased obedience, tantrums, or other childlike responses from his employees. The second half of the book catalogues a series of "mind games" in which people interact through a patterned and predictable series of "transactions" which are superficially plausible (that is, they may appear normal to bystanders or even to the people involved), but which actually conceal motivations, include private significance to the parties involved, and lead to a well-defined predictable outcome, usually counterproductive. The book uses casual, often humorous phrases such as "See What You Made Me Do," "Why Don't You â Yes But," and "Ain't It Awful" as a way of briefly describing each game. In reality, the "winner" of a mind game is the person that returns to the Adult ego-state first. One example of these games is the one named "Now I've got you, you son of a bitch," in which A is dealing with B, and A discovers B has made a minor mistake, and holds up a much larger and more serious issue until the mistake is fixed, basically holding the entire issue hostage to the minor mistake. The example is where a plumber makes a mistake on a $300 job and underestimates the price of a part as $1 when it should be $3. The customer won't pay the entire $300 unless and until the plumber absorbs the $2 error instead of just paying the bill of $302. Not all interactions or transactions are part of a game. Specifically, if both parties in a one-on-one conversation remain in an Adult-to-Adult ego-state, it is unlikely that a game is being played. __________________________________________ So my question is, if this is what you are implying, how are you quantifying that the mistakes I'm pointing out are minor? Are you just using your intuition that they are minor?
A nice NLP touch, that, transmuting loony into lonely. No, retail traders in the main are not lonely because they have themselves to talk to. What they need is to have someone who has been there tease out of them their fantastical expectations of trading and their irrationally rational views of the markets. I teach extreme mental self-flagellation and supreme cynicism. And efficient algorithm development and coding on the side.
My bad, I totally misread that. I have to be critical of myself. This is proof that I can make errors.
The point of "Yes, But" is to frustrate everyone who tries to help out so you can prove that they are hopeless irrational idiots in the face of your enormous rational intellect. Eventually they all scream their regional equivalent of "You are dumb as a post!" so you can rejoinder "But I thought you were trying to help me? Why are you getting so huffy?" In fact, I still believe that you are running a patiently dry-witted elaborate charade here. It is hard to play dumb convincingly. So either you are you are very smart, or very, very dumb. If the former, my hat is off to you. Well played. If the latter, well, the curse of truly stupid people is that they don't know that they are.
Pas du tout. It was a charming Dureffian slip. You really are lonely. Fortunately ET is here for you. As am I.
I'm not sure I get your post. Why can't my intellectual range be between smart and very dumb? I'm not particularly interested in proving myself to anybody on the internet. If somebody posts something that doesn't make sense to me I try to give them a chance for them to prove to me that it is rational. Perhaps they took a different angle that I didn't consider. By completely ignoring them and assuming they are stubborn I'm closing myself off to thought processes I haven't considered. If I close myself off from thought processes I won't be able to solve problems that can only be solved with those thought processes.
'The meaning of your communication is the response you get." It's not just me. Look back at your first two threads at how posters eventally responded to you. I personally find your obdurate obtuseness to be endearing. Others didn't. No sense of humor, I guess. To continue the charade, let me respond not to you, but to the persona into whose mouth you put words. I think you have just a tinch of autism. Obviously high functioning. But your persona does not get it. Cannot build a mental model of how less socially challenged people think. In short, your persona just doesn't have good sense street smarts. Your persona has a high opinion of itself not shared by others. And we can't even see, touch, smell or hear you. Written words alone suffice to tale the tell.