The signature: where is your invalidation?
The practical test is not about how you felt but about what you wrote: open your last ten trades and look for the invalidation — what would have made you abandon the idea before entering?
If it is missing from most of them, you did not test an idea; you built a case for it. The second signature is plainer still: count the sources you consulted after forming your view — if all of them support the direction you chose, you were seeking confirmation rather than truth.
When it is not the bias
Seeking supporting evidence is not itself an error — analysis requires it. The difference is sequence: gathering evidence then forming a view is analysis; forming a view then gathering evidence is bias.
And one legitimate case resembles it: holding an idea through a temporary adverse move while the written invalidation has not been met. Sticking to a plan is not bias — the difference being that the first has a predefined exit condition while the second reinterprets every move in the idea's favour.
Why advice fails, and what works instead
A bias is not fixed by advice, because in the moment it does not feel like a bias — it feels like a sound decision based on a correct reading. This is why "be disciplined" and "control your emotions" change nothing: they ask you to notice what is designed not to be noticed.
The practical alternative is for each bias to have a measurable signature in your trade record: a number you compute yourself that confirms or rules it out. This family uses the same reference account as the other risk pages — $1,000 risking 1%, or $10 a trade — so every example is directly comparable.
The limits of these pages are explicit: they describe trading behaviour and decisions, not a psychological state and not a medical diagnosis.
A worked example
You believe gold will rise from 2,400. You open four timeframes and settle on the one showing a bullish pattern, read one supporting headline and skip two that contradict it.
The trade looks well supported, while the support was selected after the decision. The decisive test is one question that should have been written before entry: what price or event would make me consider this idea wrong? — with no specific answer, what you built was not analysis. See trend, where the invalidation is part of the definition itself.
Common mistakes with this term
- Switching timeframes until a pattern supports the view — the clearest form of selecting evidence.
- Entering without a written invalidation, leaving no standard that separates analysis from justification.
- Confusing sticking to a plan with the bias; the first has a predefined exit condition.