(Thanks for bringing this up. Hopefully, this tangent provides a better perspective to traders feeling misunderstood / outraged / discriminated against.)
I don’t relate to. Yes.
Would it matter if i was a former prolific trader who has now diversified into bonds?
I would like to think not.
Since, the issues being highlighted are to do with a demonstrable lack of critical thinking.
(nothing to do with one’s risk appetite or preferred assets)
Well… yeah.
Can empathize with traders stuck in a rut
and arguing that they are being discriminated against,
as much as Louis does starting at 2m05s into this video…
Compared to other instruments, definitely yes.
What i find shocking is seeing folks who claim to be traders,
who also do not appear to understand them much either. 
-
So many logical-fallacies in play in most posts discussing trading here.
-
So many hopes and dreams of success pinned on actions that are out of one’s control/influence, and furthermore of a lower-probability of occurrence, instead of pursuing higher-probability, higher-impact alternatives in one’s control.
…or maybe it is just some sort of coping mechanism
required to succeed in a non-deterministic probabilistic world, that is trading? 
… or maybe they are so close to the action that
what is obvious to someone not emotionally vested, is totally lost on them?
I might draw a lot of flak from folks who might feel offended by what i am about to say next, but here goes -
if one cannot put 2 coherent sentences together to justify one’s opinion
- without introducing a logical fallacy in between
- and without getting emotional about it and losing control,
does one really stand a chance to
properly understand the markets and make rational decisions
especially under time-pressure?
PS: Issues with this post, if read in isolation.
(Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood LLM)
FWIW, without the complete context of the rest of the posts in this topic-thread, and other discussions on this forum over the years, this post is extremely painful to read. Here’s why…
The comment is less of a direct argument and more of a meta-commentary on the perceived quality of other arguments. However, in making the case, several logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques are employed to position the author’s viewpoint as superior and dismiss the opposing viewpoint without properly engaging it.
Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Issues
-
Ad Hominem & Poisoning the Well:
- Text: “the issues being highlighted are to do with a demonstrable lack of critical thinking.” and “if one cannot put 2 coherent sentences together… does one really stand a chance to… make rational decisions”
- Analysis: Instead of addressing the actual arguments or problems faced by traders, the author attacks their intelligence and emotional stability. The final rhetorical question is a powerful example of an Ad Hominem fallacy, suggesting that a person’s inability to argue calmly on a forum disqualifies them from being a rational trader. By framing the entire discussion as a matter of others’ “lack of critical thinking,” the author poisons the well, making any counter-argument from a trader seem like proof of that very deficiency.
-
Appeal to Ridicule & False Analogy:
- Text: “Can empathize with traders stuck in a rut and arguing that they are being discriminated against, as much as Louis does starting at 2m05s into this video…”
- Analysis: This is a clear appeal to ridicule. By comparing the traders’ complaints to a comedy routine, the author trivializes and mocks their concerns without addressing their substance. It’s a false analogy because the subject of the comedy sketch is likely unrelated and irrelevant to the specifics of financial regulations or market dynamics. The goal is to make the traders’ position seem absurd by association.
-
Straw Man Argument:
- Text: “So many hopes and dreams of success pinned on actions that are out of one’s control/influence, and furthermore of a lower-probability of occurrence, instead of pursuing higher-probability, higher-impact alternatives in one’s control.”
- Analysis: The author creates a caricature of traders as being naive gamblers who rely on low-probability hopes and dreams. This straw man ignores the complex risk management, statistical analysis, and strategic planning that are integral to professional trading. It misrepresents their methods to make them easier to attack.
-
Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy):
- Text: “…or maybe it is just some sort of coping mechanism… or maybe they are so close to the action that what is obvious to someone not emotionally vested, is totally lost on them?”
- Analysis: This is a classic example of Bulverism. Instead of refuting the traders’ arguments, the author speculates on the psychological reasons why they might hold those beliefs. The author assumes the traders are wrong and then explains their error as a result of a “coping mechanism” or emotional bias, thereby dismissing the argument without ever engaging with its content.
-
No True Scotsman (Implied):
- Text: “What i find shocking is seeing folks who claim to be traders, who also do not appear to understand them much either.”
- Analysis: The author implies that anyone who complains or disagrees with their perspective isn’t a true or competent trader. This sets up a circular argument where the definition of a “real trader” is someone who implicitly agrees with the author’s view.
-
Hasty Generalization:
- Text: “- So many logical-fallacies in play in most posts discussing trading here.”
- Analysis: The author takes their experience with a few forum posts and applies it broadly to a whole group of people (“traders”). This is a hasty generalization that lacks sufficient evidence.
-
Proof by Assertion:
- Analysis: The author repeatedly claims that others are illogical, emotional, and lack critical thinking but never provides a single specific example or quote from the discussion to substantiate these claims. They are presented as facts without evidence.
Summary of Other Issues
- Condescending Tone: The language, use of rhetorical questions, and emojis (
:thinking:, :exploding_head:) create a smug and condescending tone. The author positions themself as an enlightened, detached observer looking down on the irrational masses.
- Hypocrisy: The author chides others for getting “emotional,” yet the entire post is an emotionally charged piece designed to provoke and assert intellectual dominance rather than foster a rational discussion.
If you sensed any of these upon reading the post,
Congratulations! your bullshit-detector is still working fine.
Next step, let us read a lot more of the surrounding context
and see if the additional context showcases this post in a different light.
then your chances to succeed in market is (9/50)*100 =18% , which is around 50% more than the success ratio of startup success chances of 12.5%
Though no-one knew exactly what the “scam” was!