The use of Mysticism to fool the people

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by harrytrader, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. Hey go away from my threads dirty racist man ... you told me enough time that you don't like frenchies.

     
    #11     Jan 18, 2004
  2. pspr

    pspr

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Harry, you crack me up. Still, I think you need to see a good shrink. So, if you can't take the heat you should stay out of the kitchen.

     
    #12     Jan 18, 2004
  3. for practical purposes, P.T. Barnum summed it up. There's a sucker born every minute. He understood that, if someone <i>wanted</i> to believe that there was a picture of Marylin Monroe in the ink smear, he probably would see one there.

    if the delusion catches on, it certainly doesn't change the ink smear. but it might influence the market in Marylin Monroe memorabilia.
     
    #13     Jan 18, 2004
  4. nkhoi

    nkhoi

    #14     Jan 18, 2004
  5. aren't you religious?? :confused:
     
    #15     Jan 18, 2004
  6. It is not astonishing that the ignorant people in the street reads their horoscop everyday and even believes in it. What is more astonishing is that in Trading field many among the most reputable or respectable traders like Larry William, Welles Wilder, Pesavento, and many others etc. believe in these stuffs. As I said I trust great experienced people more than theoricians - but experience must be supported by a checkable theory - so I want to enquiry about that - as I have enquired about TA and found my model. The problem is that I have no knowledge of astrology so I will have to learn but It can be a strength : I can be more objective :D. Moreover using my model which has nothing to do with astrology and even with traditional TA I should be able to really conduct a more valid statistical study because studies I have seen are doubtful like the one pretending that there is 4% / year of overreturn explained by the moon effect: they can't affirm that since they don't know the true model of stock market so that It can just be statistical artefact.

     
    #16     Jan 18, 2004
  7. BTW I have the modern "Gann" but less mystic and obscure than the original "Gann" since I can almost understand him :D

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=411709#post411709

    "Pi the circle constant is a natural fit for the most prominent circles in nature, the disk of the sun and the pupil of our eye which sees the light that the sun emits. The sun was the eye of the sky, further connecting these circles to each other and setting them apart from all else. The circle number also evokes the sun's circling across the sky.

    The typical sign for the sun was a circle in many ancient symbol systems, as, for instance, in Egyptian hieroglyphic writing and in the artistic as well as religious conventions based on it. The properties of the sun, in turn, as well as the spark in our eyes, make this equivalent of Pi also a synonym for fire and light.


    If pi was the sun, then the golden ratio phi would have been the moon which it parallels in behavior, as shown on the page devoted to some properties of this remarkable constant. For instance:

    When you divide 1 by phi, the resulting reciprocal has the same digit sequence behind the decimal point as the original. This is not an artifact of the decimal system but holds true in any notation.

    Do the same with successive powers of phi, and the mirroring of the digits disappears for the even powers but returns for all odd ones. This regular alternation between the reflection and then none resembles again the equally regular appearance and disappearance of the reflected light on the moon."
     
    #17     Jan 18, 2004
  8. Besides the typo phi - you clearly meant pi I suppose - is this true?

    No this is incorrect.
    Calculate it Harry and publish your result to prove your point.

    Be good,

    nononsense
     
    #18     Jan 18, 2004
  9. :confused: wwwhaaaaaat has that got to do with it? :eek:
     
    #19     Jan 18, 2004
  10. Isn't that a contradiction in itself? Rational cause and mysticism?
     
    #20     Jan 18, 2004