my journal 3

Yeah... do you remember how I said that my mind wasn't as sharp as it used to be and how this happened in May or June of this year?

I think it might have been entirely due to stress, arising from these two causes:

1) trading loss
2) stress from my stupid boss asking impossible tasks

Then a third cause was added:

3) couple of colleagues ganging up on me, because I had criticized them too much during the years.

I don't think it was due to the pot smoking (just once) while on vacation, nor due to prolonged lack of sleeping.

The original post was here:
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-journals/140032-my-journal-3-post2399596.html

You know why I came to this conclusion?

Because now, as I am transitioning from being a control freak and no longer try to control everything and everyone, my stress is going way down, and I feel I am recovering some mental sharpness, in terms of speed and in terms of memory. Just a tiny bit.

Now I am going to see if excessive stress can cause a lack of memory, and I suppose the answer is yes.

Yes:
http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss
Sleep deprivation. Both quantity and quality of sleep are important to memory. Getting too little sleep or waking frequently in the night can lead to fatigue, which interferes with the ability to consolidate and retrieve information.

Depression and stress. Being depressed can make it difficult to pay attention and focus, which can affect memory. Stress and anxiety can also get in the way of concentration. When you are tense and your mind is overstimulated or distracted, your ability to remember can suffer. Stress caused by an emotional trauma can also lead to memory loss.

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/stress/stress-symptoms-causes-and-effects.htm
Cognitive Symptoms
Memory problems

http://stress.lovetoknow.com/Loss_of_Memory_Due_to_Stressful_Situations
When stressful situations cause chronic stress, the levels of stress hormones in the brain become elevated. The elevated hormonal levels can cause damage to brain cells and also impair the brain from forming new memories. In addition, the central nervous system becomes affected which is a significant factor leading to severe memory loss.

However, if the stress is intermittent or acute, memory loss is usually short term. Once the stressful situation has been relieved, a person's memory generally improves.

I think that all traders who don't have the right attitude (no emotions, because they're harmful) are at great risk of continuous stress and memory loss.

Anyone who wishes to start trading should first be examined to establish whether he has achieved this mental state. Otherwise...
1) he won't become profitable
2) he will be stressed all the time

Emotions cause stress. No matter where I look, all I can see is the negative impact of emotions. Memory loss came from stress, but stress came from emotions.

One then wonders: why aren't we taught against using emotions? I think the answer is that it takes a genius to figure all this out, as I recently did, or at least a great thinker.

And instead, regular people, by the time they die, have only managed to watch a few soccer games and eat at their barbecues, and drink their beers.

By the time they have children most people are still at the mental stage I was at when I was about 11 years old. They cannot understand this theory on emotions, stress, efficiency, let alone understanding it early enough to teach it to their own children.

It is the usual mechanism shown in Idiocracy, where the idiots reproduce themselves and the smart ones don't produce any children, because they're busy thinking.

Part 1:



Part 2:


---


No wonder Bush could pull it off with his false flag 911 attacks.
 
Last edited:
scientific research on the suppression of emotions

I guess the next unavoidable step for me is look for some insights from scientific research on the suppression of emotions and similar.

Let's do a search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=scie...artPage=1&gfe_rd=cr&ei=H5wtVOLaE6uI8Qfm74C4Cw

This is funny, but it doesn't address the exact point I am raising:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/24/suppressed-emotions-can-lead-to-aggression/24643.html
Emerging research suggests bottled up emotions can make people more aggressive.

Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Minnesota believe knowledge of the link could help military and law enforcement professionals cope with long hours and stressful situations. And awareness of the link between latent emotions and aggression may improve efforts to reduce violence.

The psychologists used a pair of classic movie scenes in their research. They found that subjects who were asked to suppress their emotions and show no reaction to a notoriously disgusting scene in the 1983 film “The Meaning of Life” and another in the 1996 film “Trainspotting” were more aggressive afterwards than subjects who were allowed to show their revulsion.


In fact I am not really talking about the suppression of emotions, but the elimination of emotions from one's mind. It's not like the empotion comes and you kick it out. The emotion doesn't come, because having emotions doesn't make sense, and you have come to this realization.

This other article instead is excellent and for today I will stop here:
http://www.aucklandtherapy.co.nz/Articles/Suppression.htm
Suppression = Depression

Wegner’s (1992) study on “Instructed thought suppression” found paradoxically that the instruction to suppress a thought typically induces a remarkable preoccupation with that thought, and that the resultant sensitivity to these thoughts heightens emotionality. Furthermore Wegner recorded that during suppression of emotional thoughts, intrusive recurrences are associated over time with electrodermal responses. The conclusion is that emotional thoughts that are suppressed cause stronger psychophysiological responses than those that are not suppressed. Subsequent research measuring the tendency to suppress unwanted thoughts (Wegner & Zanakos, 1994) augments prior findings that suppression may be a precursor of psychopathological reactions ranging from obsession to depression to anxiety. Wegner and Zanakos conclude that the tendency to dislike negative thoughts and to react to them with suppression is associated with depression severity, and they suggest that thought suppression is therefore a useful way of understanding how people may become depression-prone.
It's interesting how they use interchangeably "thought" and "emotion", which is not a good idea, because certainly a thought is not equivalent to an emotion. If I am doing math I am having thoughts about 1 + 1 = 2 but that is not an emotion. At any rate, here, too, they're not talking about my thing, which is not to "suppress unpleasant thoughts once they arise", but to change my approach to life so that they do not arise.

Typical example I make is the door-slamming bitch neighbor or the orangutan at the office:
1) why am I expecting them to behave politely and to be considerate? There is no why I should expect them to be as they would be if they had been educated by my parents. So there is no reason for any anger to arise when I see they're not behaving politely.

2) what do I obtain from being angry, disappointed, frustrated or bothered by their behavior? Nothing. I can act, but even if I acted and killed them (if it were convenient), I would not add anything to my action by accompanying it with the emotions of anger, frustration or fear.

Once I realize these two last things, that emotions don't make sense in their cause and in their consequence, then emotions should not arise to begin with, just like they don't arise when instead of the neighbor the boom sound is produced by a sonic boom. Since it is not the noise that gets me angry in the first place, but the fact that it is produced by a human.

More from the previous article (always the second article/link):
Constant Effort

Individuals often suppress emotional thoughts that arouse negative emotions as a way of regulating mood and reducing distress (Petrie, et al., 1998). According to Booth and Petrie, the suppression of emotions requires ongoing psychological effort in order to accommodate the disparity between what one is feeling and what one is experiencing. This effort indicates an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity which may have unhealthy consequences if becomes habitual. The constant suppression of emotions affects the neuroimmune network resulting in immunosuppression, leading to adverse health outcomes, says Booth (2005).

Yes, agreed, they warn about the consequences of suppressing emotions, and say it affects "the neuroimmune network". Once again, I am not talking about suppression but about a mere lack of expectations, like one you develop from a better understanding of the world, and humans in particular.

After all, this was a natural development in my mind, and a conclusion: when I came to Rome and even in other countries, when I came to the work place, and even in school... at the start you say "what an idiot" and "how dishonest this person is...", but once you open your eyes and realize that certain behaviors of dishonesty, stupidity, and meanness are the rule, you can no longer keep being disappointed by each instance, but start thinking in terms of how disappointed you are with humans, and then stop expecting anything from humans. And that's me now, and this is when I am expecting emotions to stop.

But I must not forget another side to this issue and it's my perfectionism, which makes me get angry even in trading, where there's no direct human contact. The inability to accept a loss has nothing to do with humans, and the way to solve this is to understand that I wrongly assumed that in life everything would go my way. And that I will become more efficient if I stop being this way, and that it makes no sense to want to control things that I can't control and in some cases that do not need to be controlled.

But this, too, is about emotions, though, because anger is an emotion.

So it is a little bit complex to summarize everything in two sentences, but if I had to, what is common to all these problems is emotions, and the summary is that I should reach a comprehension of the world and myself so that emotions (good or bad, because the good ones cause euphoria, which makes you act inefficiently) should no longer arise in me.
 
Last edited:
feeling/sensation, emotion, thoughts and to what extent we can/should control them

I need to do some research on this today, and also I have to write down something about the sleeping temperatures.

I've been talking to the cab driver about it just now, and he made me appreciate my own logic, and realize why I usually don't find it useful to talk to regular people. Within 5 minutes he managed to say everything and the opposite of everything. I asked him what are emotions, sensations, and thoughts and to what extent we can and should control them.

He first said that... well, all useless to repeat anyway. Let's get to the point.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hunger
a. A strong desire or need for food.
b. The discomfort, weakness, or pain caused by a prolonged lack of food.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hunger?s=t
1.
a compelling need or desire for food.
2.
the painful sensation or state of weakness caused by the need of food.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pain?s=t
1.
physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.
2.
a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body:
a back pain.
3.
mental or emotional suffering or torment

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pain
1. An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.
2. Suffering or distress.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fatigue?s=t
weariness from bodily or mental exertion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fatigue
Physical or mental weariness resulting from exertion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cold?s=t
2.
feeling an uncomfortable lack of warmth; chilled:
The skaters were cold.
3.
having a temperature lower than the normal temperature of the human body.

Regarding this, as I woke up I realized that (in just underwear and no sheets or blanket on) with 25 Celsius degrees we are cold. With 27 degrees we are comfortable. With 29 degrees we are uncomfortable because it's too hot. For just 2 degrees, we go from too cold to sleep, perfect to sleep, too hot to sleep. I find it very interesting.

Getting back to what I was saying, I think I have identified the unequivocal category of "(physical) sensations", such as: hunger, fatigue, thirst, drowsiness, feeling cold, feeling hot.

I will later investigate to what extent we can control them and if it's convenient to do so (probably not, because we would harm our body, to the point of dying).

I believe that if you're hungry, this also becomes a thought, and so sensations are within the group of thoughts.

Emotions, it's a whole other story, although they are also thoughts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thought?s=t
1.
the product of mental activity; that which one thinks:
a body of thought.
2.
a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion:
3.
the act or process of thinking; mental activity.

I don't think that all mental activity is a thought, but all thoughts are mental activity. Also, I think that if I am awake, I cannot avoid thoughts, but as I said in previous posts, I can control them.

But this is a great finding in itself: if I am awake, I cannot stop from thinking.

I will continue later.

I want to make a list of emotions and sensations, learn to distinguish between them...

For example, what is "itching"?

That is a sensation, for sure:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/itching?s=t
1.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by an irritating sensation of the skin.

So we can now assert also that not all sensations trigger life-saving instincts. Hunger triggers eating (if we can) and that is good. Itching triggers scratching, which is useless, unless you're doing it to remove an insect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itch#Signs_and_symptoms
Pain and itch have very different behavioral response patterns. Pain evokes a withdrawal reflex, which leads to retraction and therefore a reaction trying to protect an endangered part of the body. Itch in contrast creates a scratch reflex, which draws one to the affected skin site. For example, responding to a local itch sensation is an effective way to remove insects on one's skin.

Scratching has traditionally been regarded as a way to relieve oneself by reducing the annoying itch sensation. However there are hedonic aspects of scratching, as one would find noxious scratching highly pleasurable.[1] This can be problematic with chronic itch patients, such as ones with atopic dermatitis, who may scratch affected spots until they no longer produce a pleasant or painful sensation, instead of when the itch sensation disappears.[3] It has been hypothesized that motivational aspects of scratching include the frontal brain areas of reward and decision making. These aspects might therefore contribute to the compulsive nature of itch and scratching.[1]

Since I can control itching, because if I don't focus on it, I don't feel it anymore, itching could be a good example of physical sensations we can control, and in most cases should control.

It is also a good test of our self-control and conditioning, to see how much we can direct our thoughts (sensations or emotions) in a direction or another.

Then there's reasoning. For example, if I am doing math, 1+ 1 = 2. This is not a sensation, and not an emotion. So not all thoughts are made of sensations and emotions.

Another question, to do research on, would be what percentage of our thoughts consists of emotions, sensations and the rest of our thinking. And what is that rest composed of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Thoughts are the result or product of spontaneous acts of thinking.
I can already disagree with this, because if I do my relaxation techniques and focus on "my hand is limb and heavy", then I am producing my own thought. This is not a "spontaneous act of thinking". This is a "forced act of thinking".

More links to read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_thought_theory

The bottom line of all this is not that I want to write a paper or a book, but that I want to make progress in my managing/elimination of harmful emotions in trading and in life. Emotions that I am monitoring through my body language (cf. long list I made of physical symptoms of stress / anger and other emotions).

I believe that if I can master my emotions, I can finally become profitable, since it was one instance of anger, when the Bund proved me wrong, that caused me to add positions and hold them until I blew out my account.

There was also hoping involved. But what is "hoping"? "Hope", no need to look it up, is the sum of thinking that something is possible and wanting it to happen. "I think it's possible and I want it to happen" is equivalent to "I hope". But "I think it's possible" is not an emotion. And "I want it to happen" is not an emotion either.

But then why do I think that "hoping" is an emotion? This is very relevant, because it might be part of blowing out my account.

Is the "wanting" component an emotion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/want
1.
to feel a need or a desire for; wish for:
2.
to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire.
So OK, "want" and "desire" are almost synonyms, but I still don't see how they can be regarded as emotions.

I want to survive, is that an emotion?

Are we saying that humans, by simply wanting to survive, are unavoidably being emotional? Are we saying that being human means by definition having emotions, or even just being a living being?

I think, whatever we call it, that the element of hoping that blew out my account, was the delusional increased probability I added to the wanted event.

In other words, in the mix "I think it's possible + I want it to happen", the "I want it to happen" ingredient started to corrupt the "I think it's possible" element, by increasing the perceived probability of the event.

So maybe hoping is something to be avoided, because we are mixing our desires with our assessment of probability into one word and one concept.

But this needs further investigation, because it sounds good, but that doesn't mean that it's right. I've written things that sounded good before, and they were wrong.

But I still haven't defined why "hoping" is an emotion. Not all harmful thoughts are emotions.

Dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hope?s=t
the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best

There you go. "Feeling", which could also mean "feeling a thought". But there is an emotional element in the dictionary definition as well.

What it is... is that we associate the word "hope" with spending a lot of time telling ourselves that the "hoped" event will happen. That's the bad emotional part. So the real definition of hope has one extra ingredient:
1) I think it might happen
2) I want it to happen
3) I will condition myself to think that it will happen for sure

The third element is irrational thinking, but it is still not an emotion.

Unless we say that "wanting" is an emotion, and in that case, we can't eliminate emotions completely from our lives, then we have to say that "hope" is not an emotion, although it has a harmful effect on trading.

But if we say that "wanting" in an emotion, then things get very complex, because on the one hand I need "wanting", in order to make things happen. But on the other hand, being an emotion it might have harmful consequences, or it will have for sure, according to my previous analysis.

Maybe I could summarize it by saying that I should get rid of all emotions except my will/wanting emotion.

It doesn't matter though.

The point is achieving profitability and not waste time being angry over useless details. That's the bottom line. I don't care to write a goddamn treatise on these subjects.

The orangutan just reminded me now that another "physical sensation" is "loudness". Someone being "loud" is an unpleasant sensation.

1) you should limit it as much as possible -- it only makes sense
2) you should not allow an emotion to arise from the unpleasant sensation (nothing to be gained from it)

So it's clear that unpleasant sensations can cause emotions, but emotions are useless and can and should be removed (what is the point of hating the orangutan for hours?), whereas not all sensations can be removed. If you experience "loud" sounds, until they stop, you cannot avoid the unpleasant sensation. As I said, you can only avoid hate and anger.

So, recapitulating, this post was on: thoughts, emotions, (physical) sensations and the relationship between them. And some reasoning on how much we can and should eliminate them.
 
Last edited:
Back at home and doing my research on that difference between, sensations, emotions and thoughts and how we can control and if we should control them.

I will quote interesting articles as I browse through them.

Here they use "feeling" as a synonym for "emotion", but otherwise this article is not too useful for my own research:
http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Your-Emotions
Get in the zone. Each feeling has a particular zone in the body that it travels through.
Fear often starts in the belly and moves upward in the body. Most of us are familiar with butterflies in the belly. Fear, like all feelings, is important because it gives us information with which to keep us safe and healthy. If a person continually ignores their fear sensations or is carrying around old fear that they've never expressed, they can develop physical symptoms in the zone of the body where the fear is blocked. Irritable Bowel Syndrome, ulcers, indigestion,and nausea,are often related to blocked fear in a person's body.

Here instead they differentiate between feelings and emotions, but use "feeling" as a synonym for "sensation":
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-feelings-and-emotions/
Feelings vs Emotions

Human beings are naturally emotive creatures. We often talk about how we are feeling. Over the course of our lifetimes we will experience millions of different sensations. Even over the course of a day we will not be untouched by feelings and emotions. Often, these two terms are used interchangeably, but there are differences between feelings and emotions that, if known, can help us to understand what’s going on inside a little better.

...

Because of this, you could say that the biggest difference between feelings and emotions is that feelings have to be triggered by an external motivating factor whereas emotions can be completely internalized.

...

Examples of Feelings and Emotions
Feeling can come from the outside world reacting with any of our five senses: warmth, cold, hot, dry, dusty, drenched
Feeling can come from a physical sensation ‘“hungry, thirsty, hurt, ticklish, itchy, tingly
Feeling can come from the result of an emotion‘“ sad, happy, excited, nervous, disgusted, scared, overjoyed.

Emotion can be categorized by degree. For example, disgust can be classed as a lesser degree of hatred. However, several emotional theories state that there are five emotions that are similar to all cultures: love, hate, joy, sorrow, and fear.
So this is pretty hilarious and exhausting, because, as I said, they use "feeling" as a synonym for "sensation", just as I meant it in my previous post. But the other article equated "feelings" with "emotions". So screw all these useless articles on what words mean and find something else. I can't waste days discussing the meaning of words. What matters is that I only mean one thing by them.

Since we can now be sure, regardless of semantics, that there is a difference between feelings and emotions, and they're both thoughts, let us now try to find research on the percentage of time that our mind is busy with a given group of thoughts or another.

Check this title out:
Americans Spend Less Time Thinking, More Time Watching TV Than A Decade Ago

Here they imply that if you're watching TV, you're not thinking. This is totally false. We could say that you're not controlling your thoughts, and that they're being influenced, that's all.

time-survey-01_0.png

Gee, dumb infographic, according to which we spend 13 minutes a day thinking. These journalists are dumber than my taxi driver.

But this alerts us to one concept. The concept of thinking without doing anything else, which is what they mean when they say "13 minutes", "just thinking and doing nothing else". But it's irrelevant to my studies right now.

Now, this is from Harvard, so maybe it's better:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/wandering-mind-not-a-happy-mind/
People spend 46.9 percent of their waking hours thinking about something other than what they’re doing, and this mind-wandering typically makes them unhappy. So says a study that used an iPhone Web app to gather 250,000 data points on subjects’ thoughts, feelings, and actions as they went about their lives.
Very good. This is what I said: emotions arising from previous events keep us from acting in the present. So here they're also telling us that according to a research, people spend 46.9% of their time thinking about emotions. Well, no, wait. If I am at my job and calculating how much I'm making in the last trade, that is not an emotion, so not all time wasted comes from emotions. It could come from other thoughts. "Wasted" according to the research they're talking about.

The research, by psychologists Matthew A. Killingsworth and Daniel T. Gilbert of Harvard University, is described this week in the journal Science.

“A human mind is a wandering mind, and a wandering mind is an unhappy mind,” Killingsworth and Gilbert write. “The ability to think about what is not happening is a cognitive achievement that comes at an emotional cost.”

Unlike other animals, humans spend a lot of time thinking about what isn’t going on around them: contemplating events that happened in the past, might happen in the future, or may never happen at all. Indeed, mind-wandering appears to be the human brain’s default mode of operation.
Hmm, good. I found the research here:
View attachment KILLINGSWORTH & GILBERT (2010).pdf

Quoting always from the article (I'll read the research later):
To track this behavior, Killingsworth developed an iPhone app that contacted 2,250 volunteers at random intervals to ask how happy they were, what they were currently doing, and whether they were thinking about their current activity or about something else that was pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant.

Subjects could choose from 22 general activities, such as walking, eating, shopping, and watching television. On average, respondents reported that their minds were wandering 46.9 percent of time, and no less than 30 percent of the time during every activity except making love.

“Mind-wandering appears ubiquitous across all activities,” says Killingsworth, a doctoral student in psychology at Harvard. “This study shows that our mental lives are pervaded, to a remarkable degree, by the nonpresent.”

Killingsworth and Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, found that people were happiest when making love, exercising, or engaging in conversation. They were least happy when resting, working, or using a home computer.

“Mind-wandering is an excellent predictor of people’s happiness,” Killingsworth says. “In fact, how often our minds leave the present and where they tend to go is a better predictor of our happiness than the activities in which we are engaged.”
So here they're saying that the more our mind wanders, the least we're happy with what we're doing. But you see, this is not too related to my research either, because i don't care if I should be making love or not, nor what activity makes me the most happy (in fact I am totally focused right now, so maybe writing the journal is the one activity that makes me the happiest). I care to make money with trading and quit my job. Then I'll pay the prostitutes, all the prostitutes I want.

What I do care about is to measure different types of thoughts in statistical terms, and this article is the closest thing to it, that I've found so far.

The researchers estimated that only 4.6 percent of a person’s happiness in a given moment was attributable to the specific activity he or she was doing, whereas a person’s mind-wandering status accounted for about 10.8 percent of his or her happiness.

Time-lag analyses conducted by the researchers suggested that their subjects’ mind-wandering was generally the cause, not the consequence, of their unhappiness.

“Many philosophical and religious traditions teach that happiness is to be found by living in the moment, and practitioners are trained to resist mind wandering and to ‘be here now,’” Killingsworth and Gilbert note in Science. “These traditions suggest that a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.”

This new research, the authors say, suggests that these traditions are right.
Ok, two idiots from Harvard. Mixing religion with research. I'll take a look at their research, but so far this is bull****.

More Google research and quotes from links.

http://www.transcendyourlimits.com/we-become-what-we-think-about/
Our entire lives are guided by our minds.

The thoughts we allow into our brains every day shape our lives, and determine our future. You may have heard of this idea that we become what we think about from Earl nightingale, we’re going to go into more detail here..

So there is a famous American motivational speaker named Earl Nightingale, who has become famous for his speeches and most commonly his quote: ‘We become what we think about’. He basically claims that the thoughts we have actually determine our entire lives.

He claims that every man is the sum total of his thoughts, and that he’s where he is in life because that’s where he really wants to be. This type of responsibility is actually the case for all of us. We can change our lives at any time, but the intention must be there, otherwise nothing will happen.
What I like about this is that we agree on the fact that we can decide what we think about. Which seems almost obvious to me, but not everyone agrees with. Certainly not my taxi driver.

Everything you do in life and everything you have done has been guided by your thoughts. You might not have always been aware of this, and maybe sometimes it could have seemed like something else was in control, an external factor, maybe your parents or your school?

The truth however, is that everything in your life and even where you are now is a result of your choices. your thoughts become your choices, and therefore you are where you are now because that’s where you have chosen to be. It may be hard to hear this, but it’s the place to start from if you want to improve yourself.

You got yourself here, so you can be assured that you have the power to get yourself somewhere else, anywhere else in fact, that you want to be.
Yeah, bull****. This is a little too much. By definition if I think like Albert Einstein, I will get a good teaching job or similar, but I cannot get to that thinking by sheer will power. So, as they suggest, I can indeed use my will power to direct my thoughts and therefore my life, but not wherever I want, as they suggest. I hope they're not selling me anything at the end of the article.

Yep, they keep mentioning "famous American motivational speaker named Earl Nightingale". He's dead and they don't seem to sell anything right away, although there's a "MAKE MONEY" section in the website, but this is not unbiased as I need it to be.

Let's move on.

http://blog.bufferapp.com/thinking-mistakes-8-common-mistakes-in-how-we-think-and-how-to-avoid-them
...Regardless, I think it’s fascinating to learn more about how we think and make decisions every day, so let’s take a look at some of these thinking habits we didn’t know we had.

1. We surround ourselves with information that matches our beliefs
...
2. We believe in the “swimmer’s body” illusion
The “swimmer’s body illusion” occurs when we confuse selection factors with results. Another good example is top performing universities: are they actually the best schools, or do they choose the best students, who do well regardless of the school’s influence? Our mind often plays tricks on us and that is one of the key ones to be aware of.
...
3. We worry about things we’ve already lost

No matter how much I pay attention to the sunk cost fallacy, I still naturally gravitate towards it.

The term sunk cost refers to any cost (not just monetary, but also time and effort) that has been paid already and cannot be recovered. So, a payment of time or money that’s gone forever, basically.

The reason we can’t ignore the cost, even though it’s already been paid, is that we wired to feel loss far more strongly than gain. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains this in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow:

"Organisms that placed more urgency on avoiding threats than they did on maximizing opportunities were more likely to pass on their genes. So, over time, the prospect of losses has become a more powerful motivator on your behavior than the promise of gains."

The sunk cost fallacy plays on this tendency of ours to emphasize loss over gain. This research study is a great example of how it works:

"Hal Arkes and Catehrine Blumer created an experiment in 1985 which demonstrated your tendency to go fuzzy when sunk costs come along. They asked subjects to assume they had spent $100 on a ticket for a ski trip in Michigan, but soon after found a better ski trip in Wisconsin for $50 and bought a ticket for this trip too. They then asked the people in the study to imagine they learned the two trips overlapped and the tickets couldn’t be refunded or resold. Which one do you think they chose, the $100 good vacation, or the $50 great one?"

Over half of the people in the study went with the more expensive trip. It may not have promised to be as fun, but the loss seemed greater....
Excellent article. I need to read all 8 points and then I'll write what I think. So far a few things reminded me of my own trading mistakes, such as insisting with the futures that caused me the biggest losses, because (what an idiot) somehow they "owed" me a lot of money.


...So, just like the other mistakes I’ve explained in this post, the sunk cost fallacy leads us to miss or ignore the logical facts presented to us, and instead make irrational decisions based on our emotions—without even realizing we’re doing so:

"The fallacy prevents you from realizing the best choice is to do whatever promises the better experience in the future, not which negates the feeling of loss in the past."

Being such a subconscious reaction, it’s hard to avoid this one. Our best bet is to try to separate the current facts we have from anything that happened in the past. For instance, if you buy a movie ticket only to realize the movie is terrible, you could either:

a) stay and watch the movie, to “get your money’s worth” since you’ve already paid for the ticket (sunk cost fallacy)

or
b) leave the cinema and use that time to do something you’ll actually enjoy.

The thing to remember is this: you can’t get that investment back. It’s gone. Don’t let it cloud your judgement in whatever decision you’re making in this moment—let it remain in the past.
I told you, just in like in bad trading, where we let the previous trade (whether win or loss) influence the next trade and let the name of the stock influence our game (depending on whether it caused us losses or wins in the past).

4. We incorrectly predict odds

Imagine you’re playing Heads or Tails with a friend. You flip a coin, over and over, each time guessing whether it will turn up heads or tails. You have a 50/50 chance of being right each time.

Now suppose you’ve flipped the coin five times already and it’s turned up heads every time. Surely, surely, the next one will be tails, right? The chances of it being tails must be higher now, right?

Well, no. The chances of tails turning up are 50/50. Every time. Even if you turned up heads the last twenty times. The odds don’t change.
Yeah, I knew about this, but I won't quote the remaining ones unless they get back to my question of how much time we spend on specific types of thoughts.

Ok, nothing good.

More searches on how our brain is busy, with different thoughts.

Differences of brain vs computer:
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html
It is easier to fix a computer - just get new parts. There are no new or used parts for the brain. However, some work is being done with transplantation of nerve cells for certain neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease. Both a computer and a brain can get "sick" - a computer can get a "virus" and there are many diseases that affect the brain. The brain has "built-in back up systems" in some cases. If one pathway in the brain is damaged, there is often another pathway that will take over this function of the damaged pathway.
The brain is always changing and being modified. There is no "off" for the brain - even when an animal is sleeping, its brain is still active and working. The computer only changes when new hardware or software is added or something is saved in memory. There IS an "off" for a computer. When the power to a computer is turned off, signals are not transmitted.
The computer is faster at doing logical things and computations. However, the brain is better at interpreting the outside world and coming up with new ideas. The brain is capable of imagination.
As I read (and I am not quoting all I read on that link), I also monitor for brain's edges on computers that might be lost by eliminating emotions, but so far none.

More on computers vs brains, this link is very good:
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/
Difference # 2: The brain uses content-addressable memory

In computers, information in memory is accessed by polling its precise memory address. This is known as byte-addressable memory. In contrast, the brain uses content-addressable memory, such that information can be accessed in memory through “spreading activation” from closely related concepts. For example, thinking of the word “fox” may automatically spread activation to memories related to other clever animals, fox-hunting horseback riders, or attractive members of the opposite sex.

The end result is that your brain has a kind of “built-in Google,” in which just a few cues (key words) are enough to cause a full memory to be retrieved. Of course, similar things can be done in computers, mostly by building massive indices of stored data, which then also need to be stored and searched through for the relevant information (incidentally, this is pretty much what Google does, with a few twists).
Yeah, this is where something went wrong with my brain lately. Less efficiency in content-addressable memory. Most likely due to stress or maybe something I don't know. Of course if the person is a regular idiot, such as one of my colleagues, they're not going to have any type of connection whatsoever, and they're going to ask me to solve their problems.

Anyway, that link is great, very cultured, very refined and precise, although in some way pedantic, and I don't want to quote it anymore.

More on my quest about the time wasted by a given type of thoughts, more down to earth links now.

This is awesome, but you don't need to click the link, since it's all in the title:
Regret is just wasting time thinking about time wasted.

Couple more links and I am done for today. It sucks that no one has made important research on my subject. Or that I could not find it.

Let's go over the last few links.

http://www.marcandangel.com/2014/02/05/25-things-you-need-to-stop-wasting-time-on/
5. The desire for everything you don’t have. – No, you won’t always get exactly what you want, but remember this: There are lots of people who will never have what you have right now. The things you take for granted, someone else is praying for. Happiness never comes to those who don’t appreciate what they already have.

6. Comparing yourself to everyone else. – Social comparison is the thief of happiness. You could spend a lifetime worrying about what others have, but it wouldn’t get you anything. (Read The How of Happiness.)
Down to earth advice but it made me mature a little bit.

14. Trying to impress everyone. – One of the most freeing things we learn in life is that we don’t have to like everyone, everyone doesn’t have to like us, and that’s perfectly OK. No matter how you live, someone will be disappointed. So just live your truth and be sure YOU aren’t the one who is disappointed in the end.

15. All the fears holding you back. – Fear is a feeling, not a fact. The best way to gain strength and self-confidence is to do what you’re afraid to do. Dare to change and grow. In the end, there is only one thing that makes a dream completely impossible to achieve: Lack of action based on the fear of failure.
Yeah, they keep saying things I've said in the last few weeks, but I reached the conclusions on self-interest grounds. Not "don't get yourself down" but "don't get yourself down or up, because emotions don't make sense".

17. People who continuously dump on your dreams. – It’s better to be lonely than allow negative people and their opinions derail you from your destiny. Don’t let others crush your dreams. Do just once what they say you can’t do, and you will never pay attention to their negativity again.
Yep, already done this. My father in this case. Criticizing me my whole life.

22. Resentment. – Kindness is not to be mistaken for weakness, nor forgiveness for acceptance. It’s about knowing that resentment is not on the path to happiness. Remember, you don’t forgive people because you’re weak. You forgive them because you’re strong enough to know that people make mistakes.

23. Any hateful thoughts at all. – Set an example. Treat everyone with kindness and respect, even those who are rude to you – not because they are nice, but because you are. Make kindness a daily ritual; it’s what makes life happier and more fulfilling in the long run.
Yeah, I'll do this, too, but only as long as it's convenient. If I could get rid of a few people by sending Fat Clemenza to their house or killing them by pushing a button, I would do it immediately. But since it might be convenient, let us be polite, yet not with everyone.

24. Regrets of any kind. – You don’t have to be defined by the things you once did or didn’t do. Don’t let yourself be controlled by regret. Maybe there’s something you could have done differently, or maybe not. Either way, it’s merely something that has already happened. Leave the unchangeable past behind you as you give yourself to the present moment.
Yeah, this is good, too, although everything sounds spiritual, whereas I see it more as math. If it's convenient, it should be done, otherwise not. No absolute principles of conduct. In some cases, it might even be convenient to cry, so you should cry and get it over with. Instead of fighting it in vain.

OK, here's what just happened. The evil whore, neighbor slamming bitch next door just violently slammed her door once again. It sounded like a sonic boom, but like... a few meters from me.

So, first instinct was hate. Why should a person do this? Especially after being told that it bothers me?

So, within a couple of seconds, I said: what minimizes the damage?

By the way, that was a sensation of loud noise, so this is not something you can just ignore. It's going to bother you in any case. But it bothers me 10 times as much if it is a human doing it, and if that human could avoid it.

So anyway, the unpleasant sensation was followed by an unpleasant emotion, which was followed by some reasoning, and I said to myself: "good test".

And said: to minimize the damage what should I do? React as if the noise had been produced by a garbage truck or by jet plane (although theirs is not as loud).

So, ok, now that is behind me and I won't allow myself to dwell over this bitch any longer.

But if the bitch should ring my bell and ask me for anything, I won't open the door. If she's dying, maybe I'll open the door and make sure she really dies.

So this is to say that it is not about forgiveness, being a Christian, but entirely about convenience, and that I am marking on my notebook that this bitch... owes me a lot of annoyances. Certainly I won't worry about keeping the music too loud or anything like that. Which indeed might have just shown me the advantage of being such assholes for neighbors: they won't dare complain to us about anything we do.

One last thing. Having studied my body language and clues of frustration on my face, as soon as I heard the unpleasant noise, I checked my face and monitored for signs of stress, and tried to relax it. I felt tension around my eyes. I feel the same way when I am around annoying people at work, even if they don't talk -- I am always afraid they'll say something annoying.

The orangutan might leave me alone precisely because he sees this tension (expression of seriousness, and gravity) in my face. So this tension might actually be useful in some cases, because it tells people to leave me alone, without actually having to tell them anything rude.

----

Practical example of 1) how I used to deal with the door-slamming bitch, of 2) how I deal with her now, and of 3) how I plan to deal with her in the future:

Snap1.jpg

If I could apply this methodology in my entire life and trading, imagine what kind of profit I could reap. It's like a 300% increase in efficiency.

I wonder why we're not taught this from an early age, or maybe some of us are taught just this, when they're told to "don't worry, be happy" and similar things, such as "don't dwell on it". But I am not sure... I don't think anyone really understands as well as I've understood it now.
 
Last edited:
list and categorization of emotions

Since I have to fight emotions, then let's find more about my enemy.

First from this link, where I'll discard what I don't consider emotions, such as "calm":
http://www.ultrahal.com/community/index.php?topic=8978.0

They were building some sort of online application and came up with this list, where emotions are also grouped. I will mark in red what I don't consider an emotion.
'Negative and forceful
Anger = 0
Annoyance = 0
Contempt = 0
Disgust = 0
Irritation = 0

'Negative and not in control
Anxiety = 0
Embarrassment = 0
Fear = 0
Helplessness = 0
Powerlessness = 0
Worry = 0

'Negative thoughts
Doubt = 0
Envy = 0
Frustration = 0
Guilt = 0
Shame = 0

'Negative and passive
Boredom = 0
Despair = 0
Disappointment = 0
Hurt = 0
Sadness = 0

'Agitation
Stress = 0
Shock = 0
Tension = 0

'Positive and lively
Amusement = 0
Delight = 0
Elation = 0
Excitement = 0
Happiness = 0
Joy = 0
Pleasure = 0

'Caring
Affection = 0
Empathy = 0
Friendliness = 0
Love = 0

'Positive thoughts
Courage = 0
Hope = 0
Pride = 0
Satisfaction = 0
Trust = 0

'Quiet positive
Calm = 0
Content = 0
Relaxed = 0
Relieved = 0
Serene = 0

'Reactive
Interest = 0
Politeness = 0
Surprised = 0
I think they did an excellent job, and they just revealed to me that I don't need to get rid of all emotions with all people. For example, I can easily keep empathy, which is useful, without keeping the other emotions. My father for example is one who lacks empathy, completely. But he doesn't lack all emotions, although many. He displays: Anger, amusement, pride, stress, tension, anger, frustration, worry, irritation, contempt, annoyance. I want to become better and lose these ugly emotions, that are the only ones he displays, and keep empathy and a couple of other ones. Indeed it does not make sense to lose emotions that are only useful to you. For the rest, let's eliminate them.

Regarding calm and especially politeness, those are pretty big mistakes. Because you see someone "calm"... but you have no idea how he's feeling. He might be going to kill you in a few seconds. And politeness as an emotion is just outright ridiculous. For the rest, very good link.

Here's another great link, this time from wikipedia -- now this is a wealth of information and I will be going back to it for the next few weeks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrasting_and_categorization_of_emotions

Just these two diagrams speak for themselves:

Snap4.jpg

Snap5.jpg

I marked in red all the emotions that trading caused in me. I was surprised to realize that, despite all the money I had recently made, even at the peak, I never once experienced "serenity" nor "trust" nor "acceptance". I wasn't happy with the money I had made and I wanted much more, even at the peak of 47k. Basically I've experienced every type of emotion except: terror, love, serenity and trust.

At this point, there is no going back for me. I can't, after realizing this, go back to an emotional life where I waste half of my time regretting, hating, plotting, etcetera. Let alone the fact that I blew out my account because of anger. I need to recover all the time wasted, and if losing 70% of my emotions will help me do that, then let's go ahead with it, by all means.

The lady just slammed her door again. I recovered in about 30 seconds.
 
Last edited:
what hope is and why traders should stay away from it

Hoping, as I was wrongly asserting yesterday, doesn't just mean "I think this is possible" plus "I want this to happen". Since neither are an emotion, hope would not be an emotion, if it were just the sum of these two. Hoping is equivalent to these 3:
1) I want this trade to be profitable
2) I think this trade has a 70% probability of being profitable
3) I am going to emotionally rely on this trade being profitable, because I need a break

Hope is a manipulation of our perception of reality in a delusional sense. It is a delusional manipulation of our perception of our probabilities of success. It is an emotion equivalent to the emotion of optimism. It is equivalent to taking life not straight but with sugarcoating. It is equivalent to lying to ourselves.

A trader, as soon as he starts hoping, while he is in the middle of a trade, transforms the assessment of "probable" into the concept of "certain" or "more probable" than it was before entering the trade, he falls in love with the trade, and when the time will come, he will hesitate to exit to seize a profit or avoid a bigger loss.

The longer the duration of the trade, the bigger the risk that he will fall in love with it and start hoping.

I could distinctly feel hope arise in myself yesterday, when I was playing the chart game. After a losing streak, I started taking it personally and felt the need for a win, and so I invested emotionally in the next trade, and... started "hoping". When the stoploss level I had set, was reached, I hesitated one candle before exiting. It is not much but I know exactly why I did it. If you feel even stronger hope, you will ignore the stoploss level altogether and not even realize that it has been reached. In my last two years of trading, all without stoploss, when I brought my 4k to 47k, through a mix of martingale and buy and hold methods, and then I lost everything in 3 months, every single trade was a "hope trade" from the very beginning. Virtually every discretionary trade I ever made was a "hope trade", and I managed to turn automated trades into "hope trades" as well, by disabling their exits, since they were losing money, and in one or two cases they ended up blowing out my account (certainly it was the case with GBP in the summer of 2008).

Hope in life is tolerable but leads to many undesired side effects (e.g.: praying, and other side effects of doing something irrational), but in trading hope is lethal. In trading, all your irrational behaviors immediately come to the surface.

HOPE IS THE MOTHER OF DENIAL
Hope is related to denial, which is probably hope's daughter or son, depending on the gender you want to attribute to it. Hope means delusionally increasing the perceived likelihood of the event you desired, and denial means delusionally denying that the event you had so much desired did not take place. The more you hope for a trade to work out, the longer your denial will be, and therefore the longer you will hesitate to execute your stoploss.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Corbett video (it's long but captivating) on Chomsky. Extremely well-done research and detailed step by step reasoning:


Corbett says at minute 17 what he thinks a gatekeeper is. My doubt is whether he is a "gatekeeper" (the way Corbett intends it) by lying on purpose or if maybe he became famous because he didn't criticize any of the big powers (simply because he believes in it) and others, just as good as him, didn't make it, because they happened to have different opinions. Maybe he's just stupid, and got lucky. Or maybe he understands the truth, and when it's not convenient for his career, he consciously discards it (which means he's lying). I have a hard time believing that he's lying because he never dodges the questions on 911 or JFK, but writes/talks extensively on why he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories. To me it seems that it might be more likely that an intelligent person like him is stupid and superficial on some subjects. At minutes 45 amd 59 Corbett addresses the question of whether he's only lying to the audience or also to himself (and then he's a in good faith).

If he didn't want to suffer from saying the truth (on JFK, the Federal Reserve, 911, etc.) and understood it, he'd also have the option of saying "I don't want to comment on this". This way he wouldn't have to lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper
http://www.practicallyperfectpa.com/2012/gatekeeping-what-does-it-actually-mean/03/12/
 
Last edited:
One last post on Dagobert.

Clips from the movie Berlin für Helden by Klaus Lemke, which you can watch here (pretty enjoyable, but not a masterpiece):
http://kinoger.com/main/548-berlin-fr-helden-2012.html


---

I am noticing that his Swiss German accent sounds a bit like the American accent, in the way he pronounces the "L" and some other sounds:


---

Let me post again this interview, which is indeed a masterpiece:


---

This is good, too, I had missed it:

 
Last edited:
Gleiwitz false flag attack

Just one day before the invasion of Poland...


...on 31 August 1939, a German false flag attack took place in Gleiwitz...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliwice

Snap2.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz; Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka) was a false flag operation by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe. The goal was to use the staged attack as a pretext for invading Poland.

This provocation was the best-known of several actions in Operation Himmler, a series of unconventional operations undertaken by the SS in order to serve specific propaganda goals of Nazi Germany at the outbreak of the war. It was intended to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany in order to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.

... which was part of a larger operation, called "Operation Himmler":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe.[1]

Of course this reminds me of 911, as usual.

The reason I am talking about this now is that I just came across the article reporting what Hitler said to the Wehrmacht on the first day of the war...

19390902_3.gif

In the top part of the central column, right at the end of the part I highlighted, it reports that Hitler said to the Wehrmacht:

"Eine Reihe von für ein Großmacht unerträglichen Grenzverletzungen..."

This means "A series of border violations (TN: false flag attacks organized by the Germans themselves), unbearable for a great power, proves that the Poles are no longer willing to respect the borders of the German Empire".

Reminds you of anything? 911, of course. Sounds just like Bush talking to Americans after 911, "catapulting the propaganda".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#Context
On the day following the Gleiwitz attack, 1 September 1939, Germany launched the Fall Weiss operation – the invasion of Poland – initiating World War II in Europe. On the same day, in a speech in the Reichstag, Hitler cited the border incidents, with three of them called very serious, as justification for Germany's invasion of Poland.[7] Just a few days earlier, on 22 August, he had told his generals, "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."[3][5]

You see, in the end he wasn't the victor, so all this came out, at the Nuremberg Trials (Alfred Naujocks confessed it), but he was right, because the USA and Bush, still being the victors right now, aren't being asked if they told the truth, except by us "conspiracy theorists" nimrods of course (and by a few others, who were promptly suicided or had strange car/plane accidents).

You see, right now the Western world is allied with a country, which is more or less like Nazi Germany in world war 2. Only, it doesn't realize it, because propaganda blinds us and the media serve the corporate and national interests. Or maybe the nation, too, serves the corporations. Anyway, what are we doing? Nothing. We're in Nazi Germany and we are saying and doing nothing. See, all this demonization of hitler for what?

WHOEVER HAS THE POWER HAS A TENDENCY TO ABUSE IT...
The world hasn't changed. Whoever has power, has a tendency to abuse it, whether in world politics (Hitler then, Bush today), at home with his family members (my father) or at the office (the orangutan who abuses us with his jungle sounds all day long, our bosses who expect subservience). Another thing that hasn't changed is that the winner is always right, and the loser is always wrong. Simply because:
1) the loser won't be around to speak for himself
2) the winner will have a louder voice
3) the people, to not admit they're yielding to strength rather than right, prefer to convince themselves that the winner is right, in order not to have to fight him - they unconsciously do so

...AND WHOEVER IS ABUSED HAS A TENDENCY TO JUSTIFY IT, IN ORDER TO SUGARCOAT HIS LIFE
It happens even at my office. If the orangutan yawns loudly, talks loudly, sings, whistles, no one ever says anything. Instead, people complained to me because I was explaining for just half an hour to a new colleague how to do her work (something which none of my lazy colleagues didn't volunteer to do). The orangutan can make unnecessary noise, and people put up with it, because they feel threatened (but they won't admit it). I can't make necessary noise, because I don't make them feel threatened. But they don't even realize this.

BUT IF WE LET GO OF MISTAKEN EXPECTATIONS, AND SEE REALITY, WE DON'T HAVE TO SUGARCOAT OUR LIFE ANYMORE
You know, because I am a regular person, like them, but the orangutan is an orangutan and special rules apply to him. Well, you know what I do instead? I put up with his being an animal, too, but I keep my score on my notebook, and, to the surprise of everyone, if I get invited to a coffee break (or lunch break) where the orangutan goes to, then I don't go. I don't get along with orangutans. If he'll ask me, I'll tell him "if you start respecting us, and not behave like a gorilla, then I'll come have a coffee break with you". This is what I mean by being rational. I don't have to hate him, and I don't have to fight him, but I also don't have to pretend that what he does is OK, like the others do. No sugarcoating of reality around me. If he disrespects me, he disrespects me. If I can't defend myself, too bad. I won't defend myself. But I will not make my reality better and more acceptable by pretending that what he does is OK. I am putting up with an abuse, that's all. As I said, I don't have to always win. I am losing. But I am not forgetting where the truth lies in order to diminish any sense of being wronged and abused, sense which will not be there in the first place, once I assess the world in terms of reality, rather than emotions and mistaken expectations of justice. Only when you let go of your mistaken expectations, you can start seeing reality, and assessing the best reactions to it. If you don't let go of them, you will camouflage reality and pretend that what the orangutan does is OK.

Among the many examples of his behaving like an animal is the fact that whenever he comes to work, and he feels like talking, he just starts talking to his neighbor, regardless of what the guy is doing, working, studying... anything. He uses him as an audience. I consider one great achievement that when he comes to work and sees me working or captivated by something (which is all the time, even when I am instead writing the journal), he keeps singing, but quietly, and doesn't bother me. Great achievement, because I achieved it with just being serious and giving him serious short answers, but never had to tell him "stop doing this", or "I don't want to talk to you".

As a summary of all this reasoning: if you live a life of emotions and expectations that these emotions won't be disappointed, you will have to constantly disguise reality (cf. my post on hope and denial, two posts ago) in order to avoid the endless suffering it brings to you, but you will lose time and efficiency in dealing with reality. If you instead eliminate both emotions and false expectations, then you will just have to deal with reality as it is, and your action will be much more effective. You basically skip this harmful translation of reality into one that accommodates your emotions.

Anyway, two movies were made on the Gleiwitz false flag attacks.

One german...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gleiwitz_Case

...which can be seen on vimeo.com...
http://vimeo.com/103318905


...and one polish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operacja_Himmler_(film)

 
Last edited:
Emotions I want and research on autism.

As I was taking a shower, I was thinking I still have to do two things.

1) select the emotions I want to keep, from that chart, that nice round diagram i found on wikipedia, called "Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions"

2) find out if some autistic people are so intelligent because they waste no time in emotions. Find out if autism means not having emotions.

I will do it right now. And post it in a few minutes.

Ok, wheel of emotions, I am keeping some entries which do not seem "emotions" to me, such as "interest". I am paying attention, so what. Say I am doing simple math, 1 + 1 = 2 or maybe something harder, of course I will be paying attention and how is that an emotion?

How is "vigilance" an emotion? It might be a facial expression, just like "interest".

Furthermore where is empathy? It's not on the list, but it seems like an emotion to me.

Plutchik_Wheel_of_Emotions.gif

There's this other list, at the same wikipedia entry, where I will also mark in green rectangles, the emotions I want to keep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr...ion_Annotation_and_Representation_Language.29

HUMAINE_proposal_for_EARL.gif

Once again a bunch of things that are not emotions, such as "calm" and "polite". Gee, I can be polite with someone I hate and also with someone I love, so that while I am being polite I could be hating and loving, and so how's politeness an emotion, when it can coexist with such opposite emotions? Bull****. Politeness is merely a behavior. So we could maybe say that all behaviors are not emotions, but might be consequences of emotions. Such as "calm". Calm could be a consequence of "serene" or it could be someone who is calm for other reasons, but it is in any case a symptom of emotions and not an emotion itself.

And "pleasure" also is not an emotion, because if I take a cold shower I can't help but feel pain, and if I take a warm shower, conversely, I will immediately feel pleasure, and so if pleasure is automatic and a lack of pain, then it cannot be an emotion, because lack of pain is not an emotion, since pain is not an emotion, or they would have had to place it on their list as well.

Getting back to "calm", i think it is just as much an emotion as "sitting down". And "polite" is as much an emotion as "brushing his teeth".

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, all emotions should be discarded except those few emotions that are useful: empathy, amusement, and I don't see anything else, because also "aggressive" is not an emotion, but an action and a manifestation of emotions. Same applies to "vigilant" from the "wheel" shown before. And most of all "friendliness", which is, once again, an expression of an emotion, rather than an emotion itself.

-----

So let's get to autism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
Sample symptoms include lack of social or emotional reciprocity, stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language, and persistent preoccupation with parts of objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)
Reciprocity in social psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal.[1]

Yeah, this is interesting. Good to know, about this natural tendency to "reciprocity". So we should be nice, just as I said, although I don't think "polite" and "friendly" is an emotion.

Although of course if "reciprocity" is not the case, we should not forget the "stick and carrot" method, which is also part of reciprocity, but reversed. First you show someone you can be nice, but then if they're not nice, you also show them reciprocity by not being nice (instead of "show the other cheek"), and then they usually get it and become nice, so you are once again nice, although of course these are people you cannot rely on. The ones you can rely on are the ones you don't want to be, the "show the other cheek" people, who will be nice no matter what. Whereas instead, in order to avoid being screwed, you have to be "stick and carrot" person.

That's what happened with my mom. She got her jewelry stolen by the maid, dozens of thousands of euros, and since she's not 100% positive and also believes in forgiving, she still didn't fire her. She says "hey, now I am relaxed, since there is nothing else to steal and, besides, I didn't care about that jewelry". In the same way, she's getting ripped off by some guys renting a hotel, who haven't paid for a couple of years and she says "hey, they don't have the money, how can they pay us?". "Show the other cheek" method at its best.

---

Speaking of autism, or lack of empathy, which characterizes my father.

In our "conversations" the situation was the following. We have always had either lectures, where not just me but all in the audience, relatives and friends, were only supposed to listen and, occasionally, nod with their heads, and admire him.

The alternative to this is that he questions you on whatever he wants, but still never lets you talk about what you want to talk about.

Well, after a lifetime of people at his feet, including my mother and all relatives and friends, I am putting an end to this, as far as I am concerned. If he starts a lecture, I show him that I am not interested, and if he questions me incessantly, I either ask if I am being interrogated or ask him why are the questions so important. Then, usually he tries to revert to lecture-mode, at which point, I say, like I say at the office, "I am not following that issue", in the sense that I am not interested. Which is what he did with me his entire life, when I tried to talk to him about anything: he showed me a face that looks like expressed the interest and curiosity about my life that walls show me. Having a father who shows you face that looks like a wall when you're telling him about your life and thoughts, and want some reassurance... it is a tough experience. This when I was lucky, because most of the time, not only did he show lack of empathy, but he told me something mean and critical. I told him something went wrong, and he told me "shame on you, bad job... you should have done this instead". I told him went well, he still found something bad in that event to criticize me about. So recently I have decided that I will neither listen to his lectures, nor respond to his interrogations, nor try and tell him about my life and thoughts, and get in answer either indifference or harsh criticism.

When I told him that I was studying German, instead of encouraging me or inquiring about it, he said "you could have done it earlier". And the examples of such lack of empathy are countless. Well, one less student in the audience. If I am denied a regular conversation with him, as everyone else is, then he's not going to have me in his audience of admirers. People are not to be treated like I treat this journal, who is always here to listen and never asks me questions.

As I often wrote here, if I hadn't had such a sick father, I would not be having all the problems I am having with emotions and trading. OK, so let us not complain but about such unpleasant people, but let's also make sure we limit their abuse as much as possible.

Yeah, by the way this is the only emotions I see in my father on Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions:

fathers.gif

And this is my mother:

mothers.gif

As far as I am concerned, I have experienced all emotions on the list (even those that aren't emotions), except boredom, distraction and serenity. And terror.

However, I want to eliminate all of them, except vigilance, interest and aggressiveness. At least on this list.

Maybe the fact that I've experienced all these emotions in the past (all but 4) is the reason I want to get rid of most of them now (all but 3). I have been worn out by emotions, and my account wiped out several times because of them. I also want to get rid or suppress the urges deriving from some sensations, such as "itching". I don't need to scratch myself when I itch anywhere. Even if it's from a mosquito.
 
Last edited:
I can make myself profitable without practicing trading

I was just thinking...

Right now I am in the peculiar situation to be able to work on my trading without even trading. And I know that the key to becoming profitable for me is entirely in changing my personality, because I know plenty of edges to be profitable in the market.

Let alone my trading systems, which, because of my personality, I disabled several times, when they could have ensured an ever-lasting income. Even just a few months ago. With that 50k I had, I could have let them run and would have made 5k per month at least, and without any efforts.

But

1) I wanted more (anxiety, irrealistic control freakedness)
2) I could not accept that loss on the bund
3) I did not realize that I had been lucky to get that high with my martingale methods
4) I did not realize that the gods weren't going to assist me (if they exist at all) in going from 50k to 100k, through the same methods I had taken 4k to 50k

All I see in my mistakes is emotions:

1) anger
2) delusions of grandeur
3) a lot of hope
4) delusions of persecution (by the BUND)
5) revenge against the BUND (emotion, once again)

That's how I understood that it's all about emotions, and if I work on emotions in my daily life, this will remove all my mistakes in trading.

Even if I hadn't gotten that money through a perfectly profitable method (a lot of being right, some luck, and martingale), I could have kept it. Regardless of it being achieved through a bit of luck.

I am right more often than not, and so I would be profitable (with losses equal to wins), but my martingale method makes me unprofitable, and I use martingale because I cannot accept losses (emotions again).

So I have all it takes to be profitable except that I use martingale, and I use martingale because of my anger when a loss happens.

So if I get rid of emotions, I will make it.

Sorry for repeating myself all the time, but this is part of conditioning my mind. Besides, the more I write, the better I understand and explain the situation.

Also, in some way, I am encouraging myself, because with my theory of eliminating emotions, i certainly do not hear comforting ideas around me, but instead ideas which would encourage me on the wrong path, given that pretty much all humans are totally prey to their emotions.

I am in the fortunate (so to speak) situation of being able to work on emotions and improve my life and my trading at once, without even worrying about having to play so much the chart game, where I am already profitable.
 
I just watched "American Translation", excellent movie on violent people, that tries to explain how they think. Excellent acting, too. It has many concepts in common with Taxi Driver (some with Le Couperet, too). Obviously, just as Taxi Driver, it is not as known as it deserves to be, because people don't understand its (non-violent) message.

The movie can be watched here (SPOILER ALERT: I will disclose the plot in the following lines):
http://kinoger.com/main/1134-american-translation-sie-lieben-und-sie-tten-2011.html

The only wikipedia entry I could find on this excellent movie is in French (in Italian and Korean, too, but they say almost nothing):
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Translation

It doesn't even have a critics score on rotten tomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/american_translation/

Idiots. They waste their time rating and writing on Tom Cruise's movies instead.

One of the two directors majored in philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Barr
Barr's parents wished him to join the armed forces but he was unwilling to follow in his father's footsteps. He studied philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, the Paris Conservatoire and the Sorbonne.

Movie on violence. Psychological, philosophical movie. Yet people don't get it. Just like for Taxi Driver and Le Couperet (by Costa-Gavras), it is very hard to find anyone who understood or even watched these movies, although it is now fashionable to call them masterpieces and pretend you know anything about them.

This Pierre Perrier, the protagonist, is a very good actor. I need to watch all his movies.

These three movies, Taxi Driver, Le Couperet, and American Translation, all have in common that their subject is serial killers, and they're realistic. And they have in common that few appreciate them (besides the fashionable taxi driver, which mostly people who haven't even watched it pretend to know), because people are interested in movies that show violence for entertainment, but are disturbed by movies that show violence as the subject of the movie. Another such movie is the Deer Hunter. Fashionable to say that you know it, or pretend, but once again, it is more common to meet people who have seen Rocky, which is garbage -- as far as the analysis of reality, which is what interests me. I don't care to hear a nice happy-ending motivational story.

This reconnects me to the subject of emotions. If we want to please our emotions, we should watch a movie that lies to us like Top Gun, Rocky or Rambo. If we want to analyze reality, we should watch these other movies I mentioned. It's reasoning vs. emotions, and I've always wanted reasoning from movies, but only recently did I realize that I also want more reasoning from myself, at the expense of emotions, which are mostly repetitive, and mostly a waste of time.

----

Post continues here:
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-journals/140032-my-journal-3-post2406322.html
 
Last edited:
to control your actions you must control your emotions

In summary we could say that the famous "self-control" everyone talks about is a good description of what you need. However, what no one talks about is that in order to have self-control of your actions, on which everyone focuses, you must first have a self-control of emotions. And to have a self-control of emotions, you must first have a long and detailed assessment of what your emotions are, and their symptoms in your body language.
 
to control our emotions we must first know our (physical) sensations

So, as you will remember, in the last few days I have been studying, aside from emotions, physical sensations, which, together with emotions, and along with reasoning, and I ignore what else, constitute our thoughts.

As I said, itching is a physical sensation, and one that can usually be disregarded, and as you do so, you will also notice it less, so that you can almost control sensations in the way you can also control emotions.

Now, with the big limit that many on the web confuse emotions with sensations, I want to set out to find an exhaustive list of physical sensations.

Here is a lady who lists many sensations, but also some emotions. She titles her post "A huge list of the Physical symptoms associated with anxiety......":
http://www.anxietyzone.com/index.php?topic=27012.0

pain
Blushing
Feeling cold / hot
Dizziness
Hyperactivity
Nausea

Interestingly, she lists "fear".

Is fear an emotion or a sensation?

What is an emotion then?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion?s=t
noun
1.
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2.
any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3.
any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
Sorry, dude, fear is not a physical sensation nor a "physical symptom" as she calls her list. Maybe when you're afraid your heart starts beating faster, and that is a sensation, but fear is just a state of mind, so an emotion.

Ok, enough with this retarded lady then.

Wikpedia as usual is good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_system
A sensory system is a part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information. A sensory system consists of sensory receptors, neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception. Commonly recognized sensory systems are those for vision, auditory (hearing), somatic sensation (touch), gustatory (taste), olfaction (smell) and vestibular (balance/movement). In short, senses are transducers from the physical world to the realm of the mind where we interpret the information, creating our perception of the world around us.[1]
This means that we can categorize sensations by our x senses, however many they are.

Orangutan making noise is causing an unpleasant sensation to the auditory system, which in turn may trigger an emotion of hate, fear and so on. As I said previously we cannot ignore the sensation, and if possible we should avoid an unpleasant auditory sensation.

In the same way, too much light in the room is unpleasant, and we should avoid that, too.

So sensations should generally be ignored less than emotions.

Just like the Orangutan if the neighbor bitch slams her door, I can choose to be bothered by the noise and resent her and hate her and waste several hours, or limit the incident just to the 1-second unpleasant sensation of the floor shaking and the noise reaching me.

In the same way, cold and heat cannot be ignored, because they could kill you, but feeling restless and uncomfortable because you're hot might be increased by an element of emotions. If the room temperature is 29 Celsius degrees you will feel hot, but it will not be unbearable like sleeping in a sauna.

So, we could actually measure people's ability to control emotions by how fast they become uncomfortable when we raise or lower the temperature in a room.

After studying near Canada for a couple of years, I have learned that cold is not that bad, provided it doesn't last for too long, so I can easily take any cold here in Rome, because I know it is bearable, and by knowing that, I do not add fear and other emotions to the limited sensation of cold.

So, just as i said that to control our actions we must first know our emotions, I now say that to control our emotions we must first know our (physical) sensations. In this sense, the famous "self-control" begins with exploring in detail our physical sensations. Which is what I must do next.

So, first we study/control sensations, then emotions and then actions. We cannot start with actions or self-control fails.

A practical example. Someone is complaining about how cold he is. How do we make him stop complaining?

One would think, the only way is to raise the temperature. Or another would say, tell him to stop complaining.

Wrong. We can teach him.

Well, according to this sequence, he first has to understand how much sensation of cold he can take before his body suffers permanent damage, like a ear freezing and falling off.

Once he learns that 24 degrees Celsius does not represent any risks then he learns to isolate sensations from emotions: he feels the cold but he's not afraid of it.

We could show him in practice. We lower the temperature to 20, 15, 10, 5, 0 Celsius degrees and show the person that he can stand that cold, without any permanent damages for up to several hours. Now the 24 degrees will not feel as cold anymore.

There will be no emotion of fear, no emotion of panic... the person will stop complaining. He might not even feel cold anymore.

...

Regarding that list, a thorough list of physical sensations I was looking for, I could not find it. I will have to identify sensations on my own. Or sift through that list of the retarded lady, who lists fear in "A huge list of the Physical symptoms associated with anxiety......".

More or less, this is the list of the unpleasant physical sensations:

itching
pain
Blushing
Feeling cold / hot
Dizziness
Hyperactivity
Nausea*
unpleasant noises
unpleasant lights
 
Last edited:
event - sensation - emotion - action

OK, I have it all figured out.

Here's how it works.

1) an event happens that causes you unpleasant sensations or the anticipation of unpleasant sensations:

a) person yelling
Immediate unpleasant auditory (physical sensation experienced)

b) trading loss
No immediate unpleasant physical sensation, but an anticipation of hunger, lack of shelter, or even just having to go to the office, and all the consequences of lacking money

2) The physical sensation or anticipated physical sensation causes you unpleasant emotions: annoyance, anger, frustration, stress.

3) You react to the emotion:
scratching, changing in breathing, muscle tension, or other expressions of anger or frustration (in the case of trading, this could very well be the act of doubling up on the losing position or other irrational acts).

This is only regarding bad sensations or anticipation thereof.

There's also emotions that follow good sensations, and that interfere with rational reasoning, such as euphoria after a win, or things you experience when you are in love with a woman (sex or whatever else), or even drunk. You're relaxed, and that's good, but there are also other consequences, detrimental to your decision-making.

So, recap:
1) unpleasant event
2) => unpleasant sensation or anticipation thereof
3) => unpleasant emotion
4) => counter-productive action, influenced by the emotion

Ultimately the unpleasant event, reaching you through the senses, affects you emotionally, hampering your decision-making.

Now, let us address the prevention of this problem.

This shows how stupid it is to say "self-control!" and address the #4 with it, which is at the end of the sequence, and you've lost control by the time you have reached that final stage of irrationality.

1) try to remove the event: the dog barking, the colleague yelling. Or try to move yourself away from the event: leave the room, ear-plugs
2) if you can't remove the event, you could try to focus less on the ensuing sensation, such as when a mosquito bites you: if you don't focus on it, you feel the itching less.
3) if you can't avoid the sensation, then limit the damage to the sensation, without adding emotions to it.
4) as a last resort, try to stop the action that tend to follow the emotion. Revenge trading, yelling at someone, complaining about something, scratching your head, and so on.

One more recap for myself:
1) event
2) sensation or anticipation thereof
3) emotion
4) action

Try to stop them in the order they're listed: 1, 2, 3, 4. The sooner you stop them, the easier your life, and the less at risk your rationality.

Event, Sensation (or anticipation thereof), Emotion, Action. They are your enemies.

Action must be triggered by pure reasoning. Not by a chain triggered by events. You take events in, process them, and then, days later, you act.

If you act immediately following the ESEA sequence, you're screwing yourself. You must always monitor yourself, checking if your actions are a consequence of the ESEA sequence or just pure unemotional reasoning.
 
Last edited:
In summary we could say that the famous "self-control" everyone talks about is a good description of what you need. However, what no one talks about is that in order to have self-control of your actions, on which everyone focuses, you must first have a self-control of emotions. And to have a self-control of emotions, you must first have a long and detailed assessment of what your emotions are, and their symptoms in your body language.
To have control of your emotions, all you need is to be aware of and have control of your thoughts. Its as simple as that.
 
starting to apply ESEA analysis to unpleasant events around me

Getting back to my analysis of ESEA:
1) event
2) sensation or anticipation thereof
3) emotion
4) action

Analysis of first unpleasant event: stopped at phase 4 but maybe some negative effect on my decision-making will get through

I have a good example now. TV very loud in the room, right near me. Loud, stupid people talking about stupid things, distracting me... event is there to stay.
first defense failed: E
Loudness is there, sensations of loudness and stupid things being uttered can be ignored only to a point
second defense failed: S
Emotion of stress and frustration likely to be triggered and already having been triggered.
I am feeling, on and off, tension around my eyes and in my forehead. I am fighting the 3rd battle, the battle against emotions. Trying to stop things at the third stage.

I could not stop the event, and I could not ignore the sensations.

I am battling with emotions, to keep them under control and also trying to keep my reactions under control.

There is less focus, the noise is there... but if I can suppress the emotions, I can limit the damage. The noise is one thing, the stupid things being heard are another: they should not affect me. I should not be frustrated by someone else's stupidity or lack of conformity with my thinking.

If I accept reality and that not everyone thinks like me, then my burden will be that much lighter.

So, recapitulating, I am at stage 3: battling with emotions and trying not to let them through, with the shield of my reasoning.

But if some emotions get through, I have one last line of defense, and it's trying to control my reaction to emotions and not do anything inefficient.

In this case, the worst things I could do are just scratching my head, tension in my face, tighten my muscles... but learning to monitor these phases and these lines of defense...

... will be much more useful when I'll be trading, because there, anything going wrong, could make the difference between making millions and blowing out your account.

If you cannot stop the side-effects of such events, and they get through your 4th line of defense, the best option is to suspend or limit as much as possible your decision-making and actions, because chances are that they will not be optimal, if you are at risk of having lost your mental balance.

So, if ESEA fails, there is another "S" at the end, ESEAS for Stop decision-making and actions. This from now on will be my ESEAS method, constituted by 4 lines of defense, after which you stop your actions and decisions as much as possible.

Analysis of second (hypothetical) unpleasant event: stopped at phase 2

Let's make another example.

Mosquito in the room.

1) Event: I fail to let him out, and I get bitten
2) Sensation: at the beginning the itching will be there. But this second line of defense is to ignore the symptom of itching and stop the issue right there
3) third line of defense not involved because if I ignore the itching, I have no frustration after a few minutes of ignoring it (I've tried it before)
4) fourth line of defense not involved because if I feel no frustration, there is no risk that frustration will affect my actions.

---

Thinking back to it, there is an inconsistency.

Event
Sensation (or anticipation thereof)
Emotion
Action
Stop actions-decisions

This method is not coherent in that I am allowing, in theory, actions to happen at #4 and then I halt them at #5. But this seemingly inconsistent point is due to a semantic problem. By "action" at #4 I did not mean just the important actions, such as not closing a trade or doubling up, but also the symptoms, which however are also actions.

Let's solve this semantic issue by renaming this method into:
1. Event
2. Sensation
3. Emotion
4. Symptoms
5. Stop


"ESESS" method from now on

If you can't stop the event, if you can't stop the sensations, if you can't stop the emotions, if you can't stop the symptoms (all the symptoms), it means you have lost control and therefore you should limit your actions-decisions as much as possible, or they will be harmed by your imbalance.

This will ensure that all your decisions are rational decisions.

Let us not forget to mention that relaxation techniques, very very powerful in relaxing your body and getting your mind off given emotions, can be used at steps #2 and #3 and #4, and #5 as well, and no one will even notice that you're doing it, because it only involves breathing and focusing on your body.
 
Last edited:
I am now on page 4 of my September the 2nd, 1939, newspaper, Welt-Blatt from Wien, the most nazi-oriented Austrian newspaper of the period:
http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=nwb&datum=19390902&zoom=33

19390902_4.gif

At page 5, they stop talking about politics/war and talk about everyday life, so I decided that I will stop there.

It's getting easier and easier. At this point I can count on reading one daily issue every 2 weeks. Hopefully within a few months I will be able to read one issue per day, given the 5 pages (out of 10) that they dedicate to politics.

But even just one page per day would be satisfactory. Right now I am capable of reading only half. Partly I am slowed down by a lack of understanding, partly because I do further research on the subjects I read on. Partly because I post here everything I research and think.

The first 2 pages were very hard, then I started to take off and fly, well not exactly flying yet.

By now I understand about 1 sentence every 5 without any dictionary. However, it depends on the subject. The hardest one was the editorial. The easiest ones were the propaganda messages from the 3 leaders of the wehrmacht, on page 3:
1) very long message from Goering to the Luftwaffe and all its sub-groups
2) very short and easy message from Raeder to the Kriegsmarine
3) a bit longer the message from von Brauchitsch to the Heer (army)

By the way, I found out that wehrmacht isn't the army, as i had thought, but it includes all three forces: army, air force, and navy:

19390902_3_detail.gif

In this article it clearly speaks of the three "Wehrmachtsteile", the three "parts of the Wehrmacht". Confirmed by the wikipedia entry:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht#Befehls-_und_Kommandogewalt
Teilstreitkräfte (Wehrmachtteile):
Heer durch das Oberkommando des Heeres
Luftwaffe durch das Oberkommando der Luftwaffe
Kriegsmarine durch das Oberkommando der Marine

I used to think luftwaffe, wehrmacht and marine, but it's not. So Wehrmacht could be translated Armed Forces.

----

Ok, end of the day and I have for the first time read 1 entire page of the newspaper in one day. I can now read one page a day on weekends.

This is to me a great achievement. I can read one page per day. Wow, I am so incredibly good. With great resolve and hard-working character. I don't need anyone else's compliments. I know I am good.
 
Last edited:
I just watched "American Translation", excellent movie on violent people, that tries to explain how they think. Excellent acting, too. It has many concepts in common with Taxi Driver (some with Le Couperet, too). Obviously, just as Taxi Driver, it is not as known as it deserves to be, because people don't understand its (non-violent) message.

The movie can be watched here (SPOILER ALERT: I will disclose the plot in the following lines):
http://kinoger.com/main/1134-american-translation-sie-lieben-und-sie-tten-2011.html

The only wikipedia entry I could find on this excellent movie is in French (in Italian and Korean, too, but they say almost nothing):
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Translation

It doesn't even have a critics score on rotten tomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/american_translation/

Idiots. They waste their time rating and writing on Tom Cruise's movies instead.

One of the two directors majored in philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Barr


Movie on violence. Psychological, philosophical movie. Yet people don't get it. Just like for Taxi Driver and Le Couperet (by Costa-Gavras), it is very hard to find anyone who understood or even watched these movies, although it is now fashionable to call them masterpieces and pretend you know anything about them.

This Pierre Perrier, the protagonist, is a very good actor. I need to watch all his movies.

These three movies, Taxi Driver, Le Couperet, and American Translation, all have in common that their subject is serial killers, and they're realistic. And they have in common that few appreciate them (besides the fashionable taxi driver, which mostly people who haven't even watched it pretend to know), because people are interested in movies that show violence for entertainment, but are disturbed by movies that show violence as the subject of the movie. Another such movie is the Deer Hunter. Fashionable to say that you know it, or pretend, but once again, it is more common to meet people who have seen Rocky, which is garbage -- as far as the analysis of reality, which is what interests me. I don't care to hear a nice happy-ending motivational story.

This reconnects me to the subject of emotions. If we want to please our emotions, we should watch a movie that lies to us like Top Gun, Rocky or Rambo. If we want to analyze reality, we should watch these other movies I mentioned. It's reasoning vs. emotions, and I've always wanted reasoning from movies, but only recently did I realize that I also want more reasoning from myself, at the expense of emotions, which are mostly repetitive, and mostly a waste of time.

Yeah, I was going to tell you something quite important that I remembered as I was brushing my teeth.

First of all, people, average people don't realize how much precision and skill it takes to make an unknown movie like American Translation and how little skill and precision it takes to make Lucy, that crap I watched the other day. The interesting fact is that the director of American Translation was in the movie Le Grand Bleu, which by the way sucked very much but was very successful, and was directed by Luc Besson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Blue

But then Besson went on to make crappy movies all his life, even though very commercially successful. But what does that mean? People suck, so what is the big deal if a lot of stupid people like a movie? Success doesn't mean the successful person did anything good. With movies it is the contrary. The most successful ones suck.

Instead, one of the protagonists of the crappy Le Grand Bleu, Jean-Marc Barr, went on to become a director and make at least one great movie, which is American Translation.
 
Top