The Most Insightful Articles ABout Trading and Investing!
- Thread starter tradingjournals
- Start date
Bar 17 (1700) on your chart - isn't it a VE as well?
BTW your chart lacks complete and thorough annotations - you must have missed a critical component of monitoring.
Quote from frenchfry:
According to some instructions/rules I think you are right it would be the first VE of the trading fractal. I also might have broken some rules of clean sheet 4 in the first fractals which I drew and therefore the trading fractal is drawn wrong.
The fact that you are operating with concepts of FF and TF without awareness of what the opposites are, represents an epistemological booby trap of elephantine proportions at the foundation of hershey/spydertrader crackpot paradigm.
How do people knowâand justifyâthat they have erred? Error seems the very antithesis of knowledge. How could one justify such a "negative" discovery
Error and "negative" knowledge are closely allied. Negative knowledge comprises false claims, whose falseness has been justified. It contrasts with positive knowledge, whose claims are also justified, but considered true. Error is a false claim interpreted as true and justified. (One can equally imagine the symmetrical case, a true claim interpreted as false.) That is, error occurs when ultimately negative knowledge passes as positive knowledge in some evidential context. In other words, error is an artifact interpreted as a signal, or fact. How does one differentiate fact from error, since both seem justified, while only one is true?
What is an elephantâs trunk? What is it phylogenetically? What did genetics tell it to be?
As you know, the answer is that the elephantâs trunk is his "nose." (Even Kipling knew!) And I put the word "nose" in quotation marks because the trunk is being defined by an internal process of communication in growth. The trunk is a "nose" by a process of communication: it is the context of the trunk that identifies it as a nose. That which stands between two eyes and north of a mouth is a "nose," and that is that.
It is the context that fixes the meaning, and it must surely be the receiving context that provides meaning for the genetic instructions. When I call that a "nose" and this a "hand" I am quoting â or misquoting â the developmental instructions in the growing organism, and quoting what the tissues which received the message thought the message intended.
There are people who would prefer to define noses by their "function" â that of smelling. But if you spell out those definitions, you arrive at the same place using a temporal instead of a spatial context. You attach meaning to the organ by seeing it as playing a given part in sequences of interaction between creature and environment. I call that a temporal context. The temporal classification cross-cuts the spatial classification of contexts. But in embryology, the first definition must always be in terms of formal relations. The fetal trunk cannot, in general, smell anything. Embryology is formal.
Let me illustrate this species of connection, this connecting pattern, a little further by citing a discovery of Goetheâs. He was a considerable botanist who had great ability in recognizing the nontrivial. He straightened out the vocabulary of the gross comparative anatomy of flowering plants. He discovered that a "leaf" is not satisfactorily defined as "a flat green thing" or a "stem" as "a cylindrical thing." The way to go about the definition â and undoubtedly somewhere deep in the growth processes of the plant, this is how the matter is handled â is to note that buds (i.e., baby stems) form in the angles of leaves. From that, the botanist constructs the definitions on the basis of the relations between stem, leaf, bud, angle, and so on.
"A stem is that which bears leaves."
"A leaf is that which has a bud in its angle."
"A stem is what was once a bud in that position,"
There is a parallel confusion in the teaching of language that has never been straightened out. Professional linguists nowadays may know whatâs what, but children in school are still taught nonsense. They are told that a "noun" is the "name of a person, place, or thing," that a "verb" is "an action word," and so on. That is, they are taught at a tender age that the way to define something is by what it supposedly is in itself, not by its relation to other things.
Most of us can remember being told that a noun is "the name of a person, place, or thing." And we can remember the utter boredom of parsing or analyzing sentences. Today all that should be changed. Children could be told that a noun is a word having a certain relationship to a predicate. A verb has a certain relation to a noun, its subject. And so on. Relationship could be used as basis for definition, and any child could then see that there is something wrong with the sentence "Goâ is a verb."
RE: your pm.
Some sociopaths can be very persuasive.
Both hershey and spydertrader are very persuasive.
Repeating something makes it more believable (Myers 2005, p. 264).
Also, people are easier to persuade about something they are not very familiar with (Myers 2005, p. 265).
If the message is about an issue they know a lot about, persuading them wonât be as easy (Myers 2005, p. 265).
Myers, D. (2005). SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, eighth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Some sociopaths can be very persuasive.
Both hershey and spydertrader are very persuasive.
Repeating something makes it more believable (Myers 2005, p. 264).
Also, people are easier to persuade about something they are not very familiar with (Myers 2005, p. 265).
If the message is about an issue they know a lot about, persuading them wonât be as easy (Myers 2005, p. 265).
Myers, D. (2005). SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, eighth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Remarkable! You may be too "smart" to be able to benefit from Hershey / spydertrader teachings. And I'm not ironic here.
So what do you think about
Indiana drops handwriting from school curriculum. Educators say other skills are more important in digital age. or
Internet Explorer users are dumb: study?
Hershey is obviously insane, he has no ability to communicate properly. I believe most supporters are simply too young to have experienced the various scams and idiots that are out in the world selling their ideas. Others, unfortunately, are ignorant.
Do not confuse unnecessary complexity with smarts. Hershey would make picking up milk from the grocery store sound like quantum physics.