Trading in the Zone

by Mark Douglas

  We have to be careful about what we project out into the future, because nothing else has the potential to create more unhappiness and emotional misery than an unfulfilled expectation. When things happen exactly as you expect them to, how do you feel? The response is generally wonderful (including feelings like happiness, joy, satisfaction, and a greater sense of well-being), unless, of course, you were expecting something dreadful and it manifested itself. Conversely, how do you feel when your expectations are not fulfilled? The universal response is emotional pain. Everyone experiences some degree of anger, resentment, despair, regret, disappointment, dissatisfaction, or betrayal when the environment doesn’t turn out to be exactly as we expected it to be (unless, of course, we are completely surprised by something much better than we imagined).

  Here’s where we run into problems. Because our expectations come from what we know, when we decide or believe that we know something, we naturally expect to be right. At that point, we’re no longer in a neutral or open state of mind, and it’s not difficult to understand why. If we’re going to feel great if the market does what we expect it to do, or feel horrible if it doesn’t, then we’re not exactly neutral or open-minded. Quite the contrary, the force of the belief behind the expectation will cause us to perceive market information in a way that confirms what we expect (we naturally like feeling good); and our pain-avoidance mechanisms will shield us from information that doesn’t confirm what we expect (to keep us from feeling bad).

  As I’ve already indicated, our minds are designed to help us avoid pain, both physical and emotional. These pain-avoidance mechanisms exist at both conscious and subconscious levels. For example, if an object is coming toward your head, you react instinctively to get out of the way. Ducking does not require a conscious decision-making process. On the other hand, if you clearly see the object and have time to consider the alternatives, you may decide to catch the object, bat it away with your hand, or duck. These are examples of how we protect ourselves from physical pain.

  Protecting ourselves from emotional or mental pain works in the same way, except that we are now protecting ourselves from information. For example, the market expresses information about itself and its potential to move in a particular direction. If there’s a difference between what we want or expect and what the market is offering or making available, then our pain-avoidance mechanisms kick in to compensate for the differences. As with physical pain, these mechanisms operate at both the conscious and subconscious levels.

  To protect ourselves from painful information at the conscious level, we rationalize, justify, make excuses, willfully gather information that will neutralize the significance of the conflicting information, get angry (to ward off the conflicting information), or just plain lie to ourselves.

  At the subconscious level, the pain-avoidance process is much more subtle and mysterious. At this level, our minds may block our ability to see other alternatives, even though in other circumstances we would be able to perceive them. Now, because they are in conflict with what we want or expect, our pain-avoidance mechanisms can make them disappear (as if they didn’t exist). To illustrate this phenomenon, the best example is one I have already given you: We are in a trade where the market is moving against us. In fact, the market has established a trend in the opposite direction to what we want or expect. Ordinarily, we would have no problem identifying or perceiving this pattern if it weren’t for the fact that the market was moving against our position. But the pattern loses its significance (becomes invisible) because we find it too painful to acknowledge.

  To avoid the pain, we narrow our focus of attention and concentrate on information that keeps us out of pain, regardless of how insignificant or minute. In the meantime, the information that clearly indicates the presence of a trend and the opportunity to trade in the direction of that trend becomes invisible. The trend doesn’t disappear from physical reality, but our ability to perceive it does. Our pain-avoidance mechanisms block our ability to define and interpret what the market is doing as a trend.

  The trend will then stay invisible until the market either reverses in our favor or we are forced out of the trade because the pressure of losing too much money becomes unbearable. It’s not until we are either out of the trade or out of danger that the trend becomes apparent, as well as all the opportunities to make money by trading in the direction of the trend. This is a perfect example of 20-20 hindsight. All the distinctions that would otherwise be perceivable become perfectly clear, after the fact, when there is no longer anything for our minds to protect us from.

  We all have the potential to engage in self-protective pain-avoidance mechanisms, because they’re natural functions of the way our minds operate. There may be times when we are protecting ourselves from information that has the potential to bring up deep-seated emotional wounds or trauma that we’re just not ready to face, or don’t have the appropriate skills or resources to deal with. In these cases, our natural mechanisms are serving us well. But more often, our pain-avoidance mechanisms are just protecting us from information that would indicate that our expectations do not correspond with what is available from the environment’s perspective. This is where our pain-avoidance mechanisms do us a disservice, especially as traders.

  To understand this concept, ask yourself what exactly about market information is threatening. Is it threatening because the market actually expresses negatively charged information as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists? It may seem that way, but at the most fundamental level, what the market gives us to perceive are up-tics and down-tics or up-bars and down-bars. These up and down tics form patterns that represent edges. Now, are any of these tics or the patterns they form negatively charged? Again, it may certainly seem that way, but from the market’s perspective the information is neutral. Each up-tic, down-tic, or pattern is just information, telling us the market’s position. If any of this information had a negative charge as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists, then wouldn’t everyone exposed to it experience emotional pain?

  For example, if both you and I get hit on the head with a solid object, there probably wouldn’t be much difference in how we would feel. We’d both be in pain. Any part of our bodies coming into contact with a solid object with some degree of force will cause anyone with a normal nervous system to experience pain. We share the experience because our bodies are constructed in basically the same way. The pain is an automatic physiological response to the impact with a tangible object. Information in the form of words or gestures expressed by the environment, or up and down tics expressed by the market, can be just as painful as being hit with a solid object; but there’s an important difference between information and objects. Information is not tangible. Information doesn’t consist of atoms and molecules. To experience the potential effects of information, whether negative or positive, requires an interpretation.

  The interpretations we make are functions of our unique mental frameworks. Everyone’s mental framework is unique for two fundamental reasons. First, all of us were born with different genetically encoded behavior and personality characteristics that cause us to have different needs from one another. How positively or negatively and to what degree the environment responds to these needs creates experiences unique to each individual. Second, everyone is exposed to a variety of environmental forces. Some of these forces are similar from one individual to the next, but none are exactly the same.

  If you consider the number of possible combinations of genetically encoded personality characteristics we can be born with, in relation to the almost infinite variety of environmental forces we can encounter throughout our lives, all of which contribute to the construction of our mental framework, then it’s not difficult to see why there is no universal mental framework common to everyone. Unlike our bodies, which have a common molecular structure that experiences physical pain, there is no universal mind-set to assure us that we will share the potential negative or positive effects of information in
the same way.

  For example, someone could be projecting insults at you, intending to cause you to feel emotional pain. From the environment’s perspective, this is negatively charged information. Will you experience the intended negative effects? Not necessarily! You have to be able to interpret the information as negative to experience it as negative. What if this person is insulting you in a language you don’t understand, or is using words you don’t know the meaning of? Would you feel the intended pain? Not until you built a framework to define and understand the words in a derogatory way. Even then, we can’t assume that what you’d feel would correspond to the intent behind the insult. You could have a framework to perceive the negative intent, but instead of feeling pain, you might experience a perverse type of pleasure. I’ve encountered many people who, simply for their own amusement, like to get people riled up with negative emotions. If they happen to be insulted in the process, it creates a sense of joy because then they know how successful they’ve been.

  A person expressing genuine love is projecting positively charged information into the environment. Let’s say the intent behind the expression of these positive feelings is to convey affection, endearment, and friendship. Are there any assurances that the person or persons this positively charged information is being projected toward will interpret and experience it as such? No, there aren’t. A person with a very low sense of self-esteem, or someone who experienced a great deal of hurt and disappointment in relationships, will often misinterpret an expression of genuine love as something else. In the case of a person with low self-esteem, if he doesn’t believe he deserves to be loved in such a way, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret what he is being offered as genuine or real. In the second case, where one has a significant backlog of hurt and disappointment in relationships, a person could easily come to believe that a genuine expression of love is extremely rare, if not non-existent, and would probably interpret the situation either as someone wanting something or trying to take advantage of him in some way.

  I’m sure that I don’t have to go on and on, sighting examples of all the possible ways there are to misinterpret what someone is trying to communicate to us or how what we express to someone can be misconstrued and experienced in ways completely unintended by us. The point that I am making is that each individual will define, interpret, and consequently experience whatever information he is exposed to in his own unique way. There’s no standardized way to experience what the environment may be offering—whether it’s positive, neutral, or negative information—simply because there is no standardized mental framework in which to perceive information.

  Consider that, as traders, the market offers us something to perceive at each moment. In a sense, you could say that the market is communicating with us. If we start out with the premise that the market does not generate negatively charged information as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists, we can then ask, and answer, the question, “What causes information to take on a negative quality?” In other words, where exactly does the threat of pain come from?

  If it’s not coming from the market, then it has to be coming from the way we define and interpret the available information. Defining and interpreting information is a function of what we assume we know or what we believe to be true. If what we know or believe is in fact true—and we wouldn’t believe it if it weren’t—then when we project our beliefs out into some future moment as an expectation, we naturally expect to be right.

  When we expect to be right, any information that doesn’t confirm our version of the truth automatically becomes threatening. Any information that has the potential to be threatening also has the potential to be blocked, distorted, or diminished in significance by our pain-avoidance mechanisms. It’s this particular characteristic of the way our minds function that can really do us a disservice. As traders, we can’t afford to let our pain-avoidance mechanisms cut us off from what the market is communicating to us about what is available in the way of the next opportunity to get in, get out, add to, or subtract from a position, just because it’s doing something that we don’t want or expect.

  For example, when you’re watching a market (one you rarely, if ever, trade in) with no intention of doing anything, do any of the up or down tics cause you to feel angry, disappointed, frustrated, disillusioned, or betrayed in any way? No! The reason is that there’s nothing at stake. You’re simply observing information that tells you where the market is at that moment. If the up and down tics that you’re watching form into some sort of behavior pattern you’ve learned to identify, don’t you readily recognize and acknowledge the pattern? Yes, for the same reason: There’s nothing at stake.

  There is nothing at stake because there’s no expectation. You haven’t projected what you believe, assume, or think you know about that market into some future moment. As a result, there’s nothing to be either right about or wrong about, so the information has no potential to take on a threatening or negatively charged quality. With no particular expectation, you haven’t placed any boundaries on how the market can express itself. Without any mental boundaries, you will be making yourself available to perceive everything you’ve learned about the nature of the ways in which the market moves. There’s nothing for your pain-avoidance mechanisms to exclude, distort, or diminish from your awareness in order to protect you.

  In my workshops, I always ask participants to resolve the following primary trading paradox: In what way does a trader have to learn how to be rigid and flexible at the same time? The answer is: We have to be rigid in our rules and flexible in our expectations. We need to be rigid in our rules so that we gain a sense of self-trust that can, and will always, protect us in an environment that has few, if any, boundaries. We need to be flexible in our expectations so we can perceive, with the greatest degree of clarity and objectivity, what the market is communicating to us from its perspective. At this point, it probably goes without saying that the typical trader does just the opposite: He is flexible in his rules and rigid in his expectations. Interestingly enough, the more rigid the expectation, the more he has to either bend, violate, or break his rules in order to accommodate his unwillingness to give up what he wants in favor of what the market is offering.

  ELIMINATING THE EMOTIONAL RISK

  To eliminate the emotional risk of trading, you have to neutralize your expectations about what the market will or will not do at any given moment or in any given situation. You can do this by being willing to think from the market’s perspective. Remember, the market is always communicating in probabilities. At the collective level, your edge may look perfect in every respect; but at the individual level, every trader who has the potential to act as a force on price movement can negate the positive outcome of that edge.

  To think in probabilities, you have to create a mental framework or mind-set that is consistent with the underlying principles of a probabilistic environment. A probabilistic mind-set pertaining to trading consists of five fundamental truths.1. Anything can happen.

  2. You don’t need to know what is going to happen next in order to make money.

  3. There is a random distribution between wins and losses for any given set of variables that define an edge.

  4. An edge is nothing more than an indication of a higher probability of one thing happening over another.

  5. Every moment in the market is unique.

  Keep in mind that your potential to experience emotional pain comes from the way you define and interpret the information you’re exposed to. When you adopt these five truths, your expectations will always be in line with the psychological realities of the market environment. With the appropriate expectations, you will eliminate your potential to define and interpret market information as either painful or threatening, and you thereby effectively neutralize the emotional risk of trading.

  The idea is to create a carefree state of mind that completely accepts the fact that there are always unknown forces operating in the market. W
hen you make these truths a fully functional part of your belief system, the rational part of your mind will defend these truths in the same way it defends any other belief you hold about the nature of trading. This means that, at least at the rational level, your mind will automatically defend against the idea or assumption that you can know for sure what will happen next. It’s a contradiction to believe that each trade is a unique event with an uncertain outcome and random in relationship to any other trade made in the past; and at the same time to believe you know for sure what will happen next and to expect to be right.

  If you really believe in an uncertain outcome, then you also have to expect that virtually anything can happen. Otherwise, the moment you let your mind hold onto the notion that you know, you stop taking all of the unknown variables into consideration. Your mind won’t let you have it both ways. If you believe you know something, the moment is no longer unique. If the moment isn’t unique, then everything is known or knowable; that is, there’s nothing not to know. However, the moment you stop factoring in what you don’t or can’t know about the situation instead of being available to perceive what the market is offering, you make yourself susceptible to all of the typical trading errors.

  For example, if you really believed in an uncertain outcome, would you ever consider putting on a trade without defining your risk in advance? Would you ever hesitate to cut a loss, if you really believed you didn’t know? What about trading errors like jumping the gun? How could you anticipate a signal that hasn’t yet manifested itself in the market, if you weren’t convinced that you were going to miss out?