What I see in a lot of conversations is an obsession with which strategy to use at the expense of how we discover and vet strategies in the first place. Diving straight into mechanics isn’t wrong, but it skips the groundwork: defining a repeatable research process, setting criteria for evidence, and deciding how we’ll falsify our own ideas. Without that scaffolding, people end up “strategy collecting,” chasing whatever pattern seemed to work five out of seven recent times and declaring it an edge; then following it until they hit four consecutive losses with bad position sizing, and chucking it for the next “strategy” to throw through the burner. The gap isn’t another indicator or setup; it’s a disciplined pipeline. Think hypothesis → data hygiene → backtest design → out-of-sample validation → stress tests, etc. When traders rebuild their attention around process the chaos subsides. You stop asking “What strategy should I trade?” and start asking “What would convince me this idea works, and how will I know when it doesn’t?”. One lesson I keep relearning is that asking the right questions is far more valuable than having answers to the wrong ones; and that’s definitely the case here. Better to have the right question without an answer than the wrong question with a ready answer.