The Mirror Effect: How Personal Values Create Trading Blind Spots

A trader spends weeks researching a company. They build models, study competitors, develop conviction. They enter a position and it immediately moves against them. A different trader takes the opposite side after glancing at a chart pattern. Their trade works.

The first trader feels this is unfair. They did the work. They deserve the profit more. This feeling - that markets should reward effort - is a value judgment. And it creates a blind spot.

Markets Don't Share Your Values

Most people develop moral frameworks early: hard work should be rewarded, cheating punished, outcomes should match effort. These values serve important social functions.

Markets operate on different principles. They don't care about your research quality, effort level, or whether you "deserve" profit. They care about supply, demand, positioning, and probability.

When market outcomes violate your sense of fairness, you face a choice: accept that markets don't share your values, or maintain your framework and blame the market for being "wrong."

Most traders unconsciously choose the second option, projecting their values onto market behavior.

Common Value-Based Blind Spots

Hard work deserves reward: You analyze for hours. Someone else enters on a hunch. Both trades work identically. Your analysis didn't make you "deserve" the profit more - it might have decreased your edge through overthinking.

The blind spot: believing thorough research guarantees better outcomes. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it creates paralysis. The market doesn't differentiate.

Reckless traders should lose: A trader you consider careless makes large profits. This feels wrong.

The blind spot: assuming your approach is morally superior rather than probabilistically different. Neither is more "deserving" of profit.

Losses should have clear causes: You search for what you did wrong. But in probabilistic systems, correct decisions sometimes lose.

The blind spot: treating every loss as error rather than accepting that edge plays out over many trades.

The Fairness Trap

Fairness instincts developed in social contexts. Trading isn't social - it's probabilistic. But fairness instincts still activate:

Revenge trading after "unfair" losses: Your stop gets hunted by one tick before the trade reverses. This feels unfair. The emotional response drives revenge trades.

Holding losers waiting for vindication: You bought at $100 on sound analysis. Price drops to $90 without catalyst. This feels wrong - you hold waiting for the market to recognize its mistake.

Avoiding strategies that "feel wrong": Some profitable approaches violate your fairness sense. You avoid them not because they lack edge, but because they conflict with your values.

Judging other traders: You feel satisfaction when traders using "cheap" methods lose. This distracts from your own process.

Each pattern comes from applying fairness frameworks to systems that don't operate on fairness.

Deservingness Bias

Deservingness bias is the belief that outcomes should match worthiness. In trading:

Overconfidence after preparation: Extensive research makes you feel you "deserve" to be right. When the trade fails, the emotional impact is larger because the outcome violated your deservingness expectation.

Resentment toward lucky winners: Someone makes money on a barely-analyzed trade. This violates deservingness. Your resentment creates negative emotional state.

Hesitation on "unearned" opportunities: A setup seems too easy. You haven't done enough work to "deserve" this trade. You wait or skip it.

The problem: deservingness has no correlation with market outcomes.

The Morality Overlay

Traders unconsciously overlay moral frameworks onto markets:

Markets should punish bad companies: You short an ethically problematic company. The stock rises. This feels wrong - but markets price based on expected cash flows, not moral judgment.

Bubbles should pop quickly: Unreasonable valuations persist. This feels unfair - but markets can remain irrational indefinitely.

Correct analysis should be validated: You identified a trend early through careful work. Others pile in late with no research. You feel they don't "deserve" the same gains.

These moral overlays create expectations about how markets "should" behave. When reality differs, you must adapt your framework or fight the market.

📚 How Narratives Trap Traders explores how personal stories and value judgments create false certainty about market behavior, including frameworks for separating probability from moral expectation.

→ Get the ebook (€4.95)

Recognizing Value Projections

Questions that help identify blind spots:

Do you feel anger at market outcomes? Anger signals violated expectations about fairness. Markets don't make you angry - your expectations do.

Do you judge other traders' methods? Strong opinions about "proper" trading reveal moral frameworks that might restrict profitable strategies.

Do you hold losers waiting for vindication? Refusing to exit because "the market will realize I'm right" is a moral expectation, not probabilistic thinking.

Do losses feel more unfair than gains feel deserved? If losing trades feel like injustice while winning trades feel natural, you're operating on deservingness bias.

Separating Values from Process

You don't need to abandon your values. You need to recognize when you're projecting them onto markets.

Treat trading as probabilistic: Chess doesn't reward players who "deserve" to win based on practice hours. It rewards better moves. Trading is similar - outcomes reflect probability, not virtue.

Journal emotional reactions: When you feel anger, resentment, or unfairness, note it. These emotions signal value projection.

Accept randomness: Perfect execution sometimes loses. Terrible execution sometimes wins. Individual outcomes don't validate process quality.

Define edge objectively: Ask "does this setup have positive expected value?" not "do I deserve this trade because I did research?"

The Paradox of Fair Process

The most "fair" approach to trading acknowledges markets aren't fair:

• Accepting that effort doesn't guarantee outcomes
• Trading setups with positive expected value regardless of how they "feel"
• Managing risk consistently across all trades
• Treating all probability equally, without moral overlay

Practical Application

Recognizing value-based blind spots requires compartmentalizing:

In life, values matter: Fairness, hard work, deservingness serve important functions in relationships and society.

In trading, probability matters: Markets don't operate on moral principles. Expecting them to creates suffering and poor decisions.

The skill is moving between these frameworks appropriately. Judge people's character, not market behavior. Reward hard work in employees, not expect markets to reward your effort.

When you notice yourself expecting moral outcomes from probabilistic systems, you've identified a blind spot. The work isn't fixing the market - it's recognizing your projection and separating your values from your process.

---

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Trading involves substantial risk of loss.