Many people claim that forex psychology is a lie. That is not possible! That we only use what we know and the good strategies that we develop. That is, we give too much weight to psychology in a matter that depends more on numbers than on the psyche?
Do you agree with this?
Interesting question.
I do, instinctively (but my instincts - like anyone’s - may be biased by my own personal experience and are not necessarily representative of the wider trading community).
What people describe as “psychological factors” have barely been relevant to me at all.
I strongly suspect (but can’t prove, of course, just as nobody else can) that “failure to have a genuine edge, and to understand how to verify it appropriately” is a [B]far[/B] more common cause of failure than “psychological factors”. I’ve mentioned both, though, among my list of my own perception of the five commonest reasons for aspiring trader failure.
I think that in the world of [U]forex[/U]-trading specifically, given all the circumstances around it that attract aspirants with a gambling mentality (easy availability of undercapitalised account-opening, widespread poor regulation, easy availability of ridiculous leverage, “get-rich-quick” marketing promotions, and so on), many people may, to some extent, be misguided by the undoubted reality that some are psychologically ill-equipped for trading, making it easy to [I]imagine[/I] that that’s the “single most important thing”, when it really isn’t at all.
It’s also [B]far[/B] easier, collectively, for people to write, publish and [I]sell[/I] books about psychology than about anything inherently mathematical, and that probably distorts widespread perceptions of “what’s most important”, too.
Anyway, I [U]do[/U] instinctively think that we give too much weight to psychology in a matter that depends far more on numbers than on the psyche.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that in order to achieve any steady, long-term success with this activity, people need (among other things) [B]both[/B] a genuine edge and psychological suitability, and if they don’t have [B]both[/B], it doesn’t really matter that much, to the overall figures, which deficiency is actually harming them “most”. [I][U]Most[/U][/I] failing traders, after all, probably make to varying extents [B]all five[/B] of the classic mistakes on my little list. 
(Edited to correct grammar and punctuation, as usual. :8: )