The 2 point TL is an example of an objective building block, used in TA. Context is important, naturally. Many would say context is subjective. But within certain boundaries (e.g. agreement on time-frame), 2 people schooled in the same methodical approach to seeing the market (TA) will also agree on context. Does this then make it objective to those who cannot see?
Technical Analysis Doesn't Work
- Thread starter rcanfiel
- Start date
- Status
The 2 point TL is an example of an objective building block, used in TA. Context is important, naturally. Many would say context is subjective. But within certain boundaries (e.g. agreement on time-frame), 2 people schooled in the same methodical approach to seeing the market (TA) will also agree on context. Does this then make it objective to those who cannot see?
I mentioned the concept of "Cognitive Dissonance" a while back.
This evening I had dinner with the gentleman who brought it to my attention. As I mentioned he is well qualified and his comments were interesting to me, because they explain why people (not only here on ET) everywhere can develop a "blind spot" as regards data that everyone else can see clearly. I brought up the subject again this evening and he told a story that I found illuminating
Apparently, shortly after it became common to use DNA analysis, my friend was called upon to consult with a district attorney on a rape case, where the suspect, a black man, was found guilty. A couple of years later, the evidence was reviewed and DNA testing of the evidence determined that it was impossible for the suspect to have done the crime. When the corrected evidence was presented to the district attorney, he refused to accept it, claiming that the DNA test was incorrect. The test was repeated at a different laboratory (FBI lab) and again the district attorney refused to accept the verdict.. Rather than accept that he was wrong in the first place, the district attorney suggested that the suspect continue to serve his sentence. The department of justice had to intervene to have the man released. Eventually the district attorney was discharged from his position.
As it was explained to me the district attorney could not accept that might be wrong. He had invested so much of his self concept believing that he was right and that suspect had committed the crime that he was willing to ignore the evidence and have the suspect serve a life sentence just to keep his self image intact.
I think the application to this thread is obvious.
Steve
This evening I had dinner with the gentleman who brought it to my attention. As I mentioned he is well qualified and his comments were interesting to me, because they explain why people (not only here on ET) everywhere can develop a "blind spot" as regards data that everyone else can see clearly. I brought up the subject again this evening and he told a story that I found illuminating
Apparently, shortly after it became common to use DNA analysis, my friend was called upon to consult with a district attorney on a rape case, where the suspect, a black man, was found guilty. A couple of years later, the evidence was reviewed and DNA testing of the evidence determined that it was impossible for the suspect to have done the crime. When the corrected evidence was presented to the district attorney, he refused to accept it, claiming that the DNA test was incorrect. The test was repeated at a different laboratory (FBI lab) and again the district attorney refused to accept the verdict.. Rather than accept that he was wrong in the first place, the district attorney suggested that the suspect continue to serve his sentence. The department of justice had to intervene to have the man released. Eventually the district attorney was discharged from his position.
As it was explained to me the district attorney could not accept that might be wrong. He had invested so much of his self concept believing that he was right and that suspect had committed the crime that he was willing to ignore the evidence and have the suspect serve a life sentence just to keep his self image intact.
I think the application to this thread is obvious.
Steve
Hi rcanfiel,
You've been upfront with me and as mentioned before I actually agree with some things you say especially now that I know what type of TA your actually talking about.
Further, your correct, I am stretching my commentary because as the ??? showed...
I'm curious why you only want someone's system code or want them to use an independent verification system and not any other proof that the system has merits.
Also, I strongly suspect you know how big the field of TA really is and that its far more than just some indicator code.
I suspect such because you stated in your opening commentary that price action only TA methods are excluded.
Simply, what's up with the blanket statement that Technical Analysis Doesn't Work???
Why didn't you fine tune it to what your actually talking about like any of the following...
* Coded TA system with no other inputs do not work.
Then if that's the case, you said 1% of the stuff you've tested had an edge.
Can you clarify what that statement means?
In addition, does your own system designs have an edge and is it based upon anything involving TA???
Note: I don't need access to your system.
I'll take your word that it has nothing to do with analyzing price data if you say it has nothing to do with TA.
Also, as a reminder to most here, the stuff that you use that works for you is not the stuff that rcanfiel is pointing his finger at.
The stuff he's pointing his finger at is the typical junk that many charting programs have canned in their programs.
It's also the repackaged programs sold by vendors (ex. wizetrade).
You know, the TA stuff that some of the newbie retail traders are attracted too and not the TA stuff used by institutions nor attracted to what most profitable traders are using because the TA stuff used by profitable traders has other inputs involved or is just too darn boring.
These other inputs can't be coded by guys like rcanfiel even though the stuff may be a rule based methodology (ex. intermarket analysis, market seasonal tendencies et cetera).
We all see how discussions about TA goes here at EliteTrader.com.
Start a thread about CCI indicator and in no time its one of the most popular threads here at ET going easily +20 pages of info.
Start a thread about intermarket analysis and you'll be lucky to get 5 pages of participation.
Simply, rcanfiel will most likely never get his proof because most profitable traders using TA do not trade the way he dislikes.
What he really dislikes about TA is its presentation by some vendors that promote TA that's all you need to be profitable.
In addition, I really can't imagine someone revealing a pure coded TA system that's profitable and can endure your statistical examination without any other inputs to help it be profitable.
rcanfiel, have you noticed that none of the traders from the P/L thread have posted in this thread???
Are you aware that a few traders in this thread post profitable P/L statements elsewhere (not at ET) and uses TA heavily???
I just think your approach to all of this is putting many in the mode of saying to themselves...
Let that guy sit inside the box because its a wast of time and energy to prove anything to him.
Thus, I think your rubbing some of us the wrong way with the blanket statement and the continued blanket statements you make when you bring in commentary from other sources.
Analogy, imagine someone knocking on your door yelling in a loud voice...
PROVE TO ME YOU LIVE HERE!!!.
What do you think is going to happen?
Your either going to get a door slammed in your face or your front teeth knocked out resulting in you stumbling away in thinking that guy provided no proof that he lived there.
Simply, your approach into this debate is wrong and you continue knocking on doors with that attitude.
Thus, if there's someone out there that has what you seek...
You are the last person they will reveal it too and that could be why your pesistent with this because you've traveled a path now that you can't double back on.
It's also possible you really don't want to see something that you've failed at doing yourself.
As a system designer, that would be a tough pill for you to swallow.
It's not subjective if its rule based and if its rule based doesn't imply it can be coded.
Good night all.
Mark
hi steve... i think this is not a good example....
Clearly there could be self interests that prevents the district attorney from wanting to admit the DNA evidence...since his job is on the line.
Just like there could be a number of self professed gurus ( not refering to you) who peddle their wares here must insist that certain methods works to attract students.
BTW i do use TA... i just think that your example may not be such a good one.
cheers
I'm not entirely certain what "it" your terminal query is referring to. Is "it" the mutually agreed upon context which permits the construction of the two point trendline? Or is "it" the two point trendline, itself. Or is "it" the contextual-protocol duality? Whatever the case might be, it would seem to me that a more general answer to your question depends on what it is that the two cognoscenti perceive they are "seeing" as a result of their "mutually agreed upon trading reality".
Some profound inner working of the market that can only be "seen" using their particular protocol? I doubt it. Perhaps then it is a particular way of looking at a rather routine aspect of the market, constructed/deconstructed in such a way that it seems more complicated than what it really is? This I would suggest is more probable than the first suggestion.
The notion of a 2 point trendline being an objective building block for a particular type of TA (the Jack Hershey variant if I'm not mistaken) is just fine but, as you state, this is an imposed condition deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the methodology. The only matter of consequence for the JH or any other variant of TA is does one make money with it.
Much of the negative publicity associated with TA is a result of the two conditions noted in my earlier post. And while we're on the subject, I do not think that CTA's are necessarily representative of what a TA state o' mind has to offer. By and large they are peddling a product which provides them with a source of income and which may or may not have something to do with beating a benchmark.
lj
- Status