I wasn’t even going to dignify this with an answer, but after such low belt punches and so much noise, I felt some clarification was needed for the benefit of the casual reader.
My thread starts with information based on a link from a very credible website. Its author is named Cory Mitchell, apparently an experienced trader that gives very sound trading advice as you can see for yourselves when you visit his pages. He is independent and writes based on his own personal experience as a trader.
Among his various articles, he has this particular one about new traders performance stats where he shares the astonishing superiority of women as new comer traders:
I found it interesting enough to share here.
After a while and a few very interesting and smart comments from @PipMeHappy, that has another great thread about the role of women in trading Why we need more (good) female traders , PipMeHappy decided to share the link of another study with similar results.
I read it, found it very interesting and decided to use this link in order to broaden the results of the first study of Cory Mitchell. Here it is: New figures show women make better traders than men on every metric imaginable | eFinancialCareers
This second study was achieved by Financial Skills, a trading profiling company founded by a group of ex-traders from Merrill Lynch and also suggests that women make far better traders than men.
Neither of those studies are related to each other, nor does Cory Mitchell work for Financial Skills. Since they have no relation to each other that is why they are a good confirmation of the same fact: Apparently women make better traders than men.
Same conclusion, achieved by two different studies using and analyzing different sets of data.
I think it is fair to say that both studies come from very credible sources: In one case we have an independent trader and his many years of observations during courses for new comers, on the other, a group of ex traders from Merrill Lynch now focusing on studies and data analysis.
This is the kind of solid information that can only be either refuted or confirmed by other equally solid studies or new sets of data and an intelligent analysis of such data.
I don t see any of that in your response. Instead, you can only produce flashy pictures (lots of those), extremely dubious connections and totally misguided conclusions. And you seem very proud of it.
It is very interesting to note that your arguments come from two links:
The first link is, wait for it…A LINK TO YOURSELF in this same forum, where you regurgitate these same kind of ideas over and over again. It certainly is a highly unbiased and credible link, since you seem to enjoy so much to pinpoint biased ideas in other people’s articles.
The second link is another version of the Financial Skills/Merrill Lynch article, where, apparently, Cory Mitchell is mentioned as being female. Most likely they read his article from an older web page that had not so many flashy pictures that you love so much and assumed he was female as Cory can be either a male or female name. Since the article was very favorable to women it is not a big stretch to assume its author named Cory was also female. Of course you had to make a huge deal out of such an insignificant detail.
And what if Cory is female, male or even transgender? Does that affect in any way the results of his study and his conclusions, or even his ability to trade and his years of professional experience? Apparently this is only a big problem for you. Nobody else seems to care, even your buddy @thetradinggod said: