TE if you deem this posts has no relevance or is not appropriate here, I will gladly withdraw it with no offence taken.
In thinking about this thread and the role of education my mind veered off on a tangent regarding the rule of three (particularly as it pertains to writing). It is prevalent in almost all storytelling, but especially in origins, comedies, and children stories/morality tales, so that by a very young age it is deeply embedded in our brains and perpetually reaffirmed throughout our lives. It has a profound effect on how we observe events unfold. The timing between these events can be very significant depending on the situation.
e.g.
Three events in rapid succession
vs
two events in rapid succession and a delayed third event
vs
three equidistant events
all adhere to the rule of three but can leave dramatically different impressions. In spite of these differences we can all easily identify a simple pattern of three events. But how do we do this so effectively to receive our psychological payoff? I did some exploring into my own process while reading a short story and came up with the following:
The first event I would call an anomaly. It has not happened before and I recognize it as a novelty.
The second event I would call a coincidence. I recognize it as an event I observed in the past. This event is now familiar to me but I can draw no further significance from its occurrence.
The third event I initially called confirmation. I recognize the events as recurring. I also receive a positive psychological payoff for making the connection between the three events. Based on these three events I draw conclusions about the relationship between these events. Because I now believe there is a pattern I attribute a significance to occurring events.
{just now I noticed the exponentially increasing complexity of my own explanations with each subsequent event}
I suspect that many people out of habit or instinct attempt to trade with this thought process . In my experience this is not a good approach to interpreting unfolding events in markets as the market does not care one iota about the rule of three. Im not sure how to correctly define the third event, but Im certain its not confirmation even though ive been conditioned to believe that it is.
Just some thoughts...
C.W.
In thinking about this thread and the role of education my mind veered off on a tangent regarding the rule of three (particularly as it pertains to writing). It is prevalent in almost all storytelling, but especially in origins, comedies, and children stories/morality tales, so that by a very young age it is deeply embedded in our brains and perpetually reaffirmed throughout our lives. It has a profound effect on how we observe events unfold. The timing between these events can be very significant depending on the situation.
e.g.
Three events in rapid succession
vs
two events in rapid succession and a delayed third event
vs
three equidistant events
all adhere to the rule of three but can leave dramatically different impressions. In spite of these differences we can all easily identify a simple pattern of three events. But how do we do this so effectively to receive our psychological payoff? I did some exploring into my own process while reading a short story and came up with the following:
The first event I would call an anomaly. It has not happened before and I recognize it as a novelty.
The second event I would call a coincidence. I recognize it as an event I observed in the past. This event is now familiar to me but I can draw no further significance from its occurrence.
The third event I initially called confirmation. I recognize the events as recurring. I also receive a positive psychological payoff for making the connection between the three events. Based on these three events I draw conclusions about the relationship between these events. Because I now believe there is a pattern I attribute a significance to occurring events.
{just now I noticed the exponentially increasing complexity of my own explanations with each subsequent event}
I suspect that many people out of habit or instinct attempt to trade with this thought process . In my experience this is not a good approach to interpreting unfolding events in markets as the market does not care one iota about the rule of three. Im not sure how to correctly define the third event, but Im certain its not confirmation even though ive been conditioned to believe that it is.
Just some thoughts...
C.W.
