Gambling is not a psychological flaw. Gambling can just be a form of entertainment. Many people can gamble occasionally and are not psychologically flawed. Millions simply have fun going to Vegas or the track and gamble with no addictive behavior involved, nor any psychological flaws underlying their behavior. Buying a lottery ticket occasionally is hardly an indication of a psychological flaw...yet it is gambling. I would challenge you to find any reference in any accepted psychological journal or textbook that describes occasional and random gambling as a psychological flaw. The issue is whether or not someone can walk away from any behavior without withdrawals, whether the activity is gambling, trading, drinking, smoking, etc. Any activity that results in the degradation of body, mind, and spirit that cannot be stopped or overcome via the exercise of will is considered addiction. GA is about powerlessness over the addiction of gambling, which has its roots in a lack of spiritual connection with a higher power. One common definition of addiction is the repeated performance of an action with the expectation of different results. Traders who repeatedly lose money trading, then cannot stop themselves from trading or simply walk away without withdrawal symptoms are addicted to the trading process.
Argue semantics all you want. This is not what im referring to in the context of this thread. peace axeman
You defined your terms, so it is a partly a semantic argument. Here is your definition from this thread of gambling: "I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason." You then follow with this statement: "Gambling is a psychological flaw." Throwing some coins into a slot machine is taking a risk of losing those coins without a well thought out, researched, reason. Therefore, by your definition it is gambling. Someone asking out a woman he meets at a bar and taking the risk of rejection without a well thought out, researched, reason also meets the criteria of your definition of gambling. Going home and sleeping with that girl without any protection from possible sexually transmitted diseases is also taking a risk without a well thought out, researched, reason. However, I again challenge you to explain why any of these behaviors is the result of a psychological flaw. I think you would discover that those who are experts in the field of psychological flaws would say these occasional and non compulsive behaviors are just human nature. Those who "gamble" on the stock market, or who are discretionary traders relying on intuition and luck, are not necessarily psychologically flawed. The psychological flaw presents itself when the uncontrollable behavior of gambling has a detrimental effect on mind, body and spirit. It is not the act of gambling that is psychologically flawed, it is the inability to stop destructive behavior that reveals the underlying psychological flaw.
You are ignoring the context and missed my context switch. In my original post I ALSO said: If you trade for the action, the highs, the lows, do NOT have the discipline to follow the rules of a proven system, and can't stop yourself from trading when you shouldn't, then you ARE a gambler. I'm describing someone who is compulsive and cannot stop themselves, like a drug addict. This is what I mean by a psychological FLAW. Later... in a sub-thread comparing business men to traders I said: "I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason." Here the context is different, and I am NOT referring to the psychological aspects of gambling behavior, but contrasting/comparing business risk/trading risk, and completely blind risk, which some people call gambling. Like I said... this is about semantics. Gambling has many definitions, and they are context dependent. People who have uncontrollable urges which force them to trade/gamble are GAMBLERS. And people who make blind risks are GAMBLING. But the word has different meanings depending on the context. Thats why it's even being argued. "Someone asking out a woman he meets at a bar and taking the risk of rejection without a well thought out, researched, reason also meets the criteria of your definition of gambling. However, I again challenge you to explain why any of these behaviors is the result of a psychological flaw." They DONT show a psychological flaw. They only meet my second definition which is really about taking calculated or uncalculated risks. However, if they guy ran around hitting on every girl he came across uncontrollably/compulsively like he was addicted to some kind of drug, then he would meet my first definition, which deals with an actual psychological flaw containing compulsive types of behavior. peace axeman
LOL!! It scared the s**t outta me too when one of the people at the GA meeting read it aloud. For the next 20 minutes while others where reading other passages of the booklet, I kept flipping back to it. At the end of night, I concluded that sharing one strikingly similar characteristic of compulsive gamblers doesn't necessarily make me a compulsive gambler. That is probably why you have to answer yes to more than 7 of the questions to start raising flags instead of just 1. I also concluded that the similarity was worth investigating further and that is why I started the thread. BTW, I view the argument on semantics as a tangent to the real issue. The question is how can we improve as traders by acknowledging it shares similarities to gambling. The person who posted the innerworth article was very helpful. I printed it out and underlined these two lines that will help me be more disciplined: "It's all a matter of executing the strategy effortlessly and mechanically over and over so that the odds will work in your favor." "I'll trust my strategy, repeat it over and over, and the odds will work for me." Cheers, DNAJ65000
This is probably why things like commodities, horses, sports betting are particularly seductive for the gambler because he may think he is using reason. I saw a PBS program on compulsive gambling. It had this guy who did horses. Knew all about horses. Studies them all the time. But he didn't follow the odds using a disciplined plan or create a portfolio of bets the way a the professional horse bettor describe in the NYT article might. He used his array of track trivia and tips to fool himself into thinking that he had some special ability and that he knew which horse was really going to win. He didn't make good bets: he went for the big win. Also he was really into emotional highs and lows. Crises, emergencies, followed by hope. A professional trader doesn't get all involved in the outcome of a certain trade. He knows that by calmly working his plan, he's going to get a certain profile of wins and losses that will be profitable over time. He has a true belief about his trading abilities based on sober experience and he knows what he can expect from the markets. He doesn't use a mass of facts to fool himself or supply himself with false or exaggerated ideas.
You don't need horses, cards or stock trading to enter a dream world. Look at all those coffee house writers and poets. Then compare that to a Neil Gaiman who approaches the task of writing as a professional.
In theory, my answer to ALL those questions are yes. I believe my greed can be paralleled only with the greatest emperors and dictators of the past centuries. But I say 'in theory' because those thoughts that my mind produces every minute are just... thoughts. Eventhough its true it often hollows my soul I know they are counter productive and harmful for myself so I have a high rate of success in not letting those thoughts turn into actions. See, I don't even trade and I will continue to maintain this policy until I feel that both my mind and spirit has reached the point of a certain desired maturity. I also bought just one luxury item this year, and its wasn't even that expensive. So far I have been having success in keeping that beast called greed in the jail and letting it go when needed. I have the key and the chains, its up to me to decide when the beast must go and when it must be jailed back. Its a really tuff task to ponder but I can feel I evolve and advance every day. Bottom line is I am light years away from my goal, my destiny, but Im sure on the right track, and the longer my journey gets, the harder it feels. Now that Im thinking... greed was always inherent to my character, but a certain car awoke it and a certain blue eyed blonde literally put the beast on a extreme rage state. yea... Again, about the 'gambles paradise', Im still amazed, I mean, the coincidences are 100% literal. Last month the only thing I could think about was a cuban swiss watch that comes in a NICE cigar humidor case that I plan to give to my dad in his birthday [philanthropy], and during this current week I already dreamed 3 times about a certain penthouse I see everyday when Im driving my sister to school [penthouses, obviously ] Now going any further would make me feel like a complete idiot, so I will stop from here.
(After almost 2 years from the last reply, I feel like this thread still has potential) That text from the GA booklet represents pure human nature and Im not ashamed of at least once experiencing the thinking of all of them. Those concepts would exist even if no one has ever thought of them. So, having those ideas in your mind basically means that you are conscious about the world that encompasses yourself. The side effect of knowing clearly what is good is the hallow of the defined evil. Everyone has those mentioned vices inside. The very few ones who can dominate and manipulate them are more likely to succeed in life.