In my case, the psychodynamic approach ("free association thinking"), in which while trading and blogging I listen to background music of popular classical music (Bocelli, Brightman et al) or very soft rock (Groban, Dion et al), is just as important as the cognitive approach.

The quiet objective study of money flows, framed within a cause-and-effect paradigm, is the pull. On the other hand, cognitivism is the push.

You see, I also believe the market is inherently computable, based on a multiplicity of rules. I hope so because I am presently working on a sophisticated algorithmic trading model.

But I'm wondering if the algorithmic trading approach can work without adding the psychodynamic element. And I wonder if that is programmable.

In this regard, I often talk about the programmed algorithms as being like the engineering of a Formula One racecar, and the racecar driver's mental performance as the differentiator between winning and losing.

This weekend I heard a racecar driver saying that he had the right car under him, but he just couldn't get into a winning rhythm.

Beyond my readings in psychology in first and second year college studies, some 40 years ago, I have no formal background in this field, and I have never explored the rationale of why I do what I do when trading capital markets.

Not to make a joke of it, I do have a difficult time trying to explain that I find trading the market like a dance.

Occasionally I think about it. For example a couple days ago a reader by the name of JP Willis asked if I had an ingrained bias against France. That surprised me because I continuously rail against the clear bias in that way by CNBC Squawk Box host Mark Haines.

I thought I was above such pettiness, but maybe not.

Capital markets and social equity is what this blog is all about, but maybe it should also be about the importance of psychology.