I absolutely agree with you for the first part!!! Damn that is scary. For the last part, I'll clarify saying that I feel that NORMAL/AVERAGE TA is limited in its ability to offer the average trader ANY edge whatsoever.
Actually, I don't think that this is at all what Spydertrader is saying. It is what marketsurfer is always saying.
So, would it be safe to say that there is a possibility that markets following (like gravity or electricity) some objective laws that do not depend on how traders play it?
I said no such thing. In fact, a myriad of ways exist to profit from the markets. Some methods I fully comprehend, while others I lack the knowledge and skills to execute. However, becuase I don't know how to trade options doesn't mean you can't profit from your knowledge, skills and abilities. Just as your inability to 'see' a trend has no bearing on my knowledge, skills, experience or profits. marketsurfer, on the other hand, cannot trade for a living. How again is one, who cannot trade any method successfully qualified to form opinions on what other traders can and cannot do? This isn't a cut on surf. He's a friendly and generous individual. However, my point is this, simply becuase you cannot see something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. You cannot 'see' trends now, just as scientists once believed the earth to be flat. Some people still believe the earth is flat becuase they cannot 'see' it otherwise. If you cannot 'see' the market as I do, no problem. Such a viewpoint does not preclude you from making profits. However, your 'belief' system also fails to influence my profits. Many ways to skin a cat. - Spydertrader
Of course I do! I doubt my self regularly! It does not preclude me though from expressing my point of view.
Actually, I would be disinclined to compare the movement of markets with the laws of gravity or electricity. As I have noted repeatedly in other threads and, no doubt, as many people would agree, the study of price movement is perhaps better described as a "social science" rather than a pure, hard science such as physics. In fact, I would think that the market moves exactly in relation to how traders (in the aggregate) play it.
I am glad that you clarified it. I believe in exact opposite. I believe that like gas dynamics could be studied objectively without describing how each of the molecules move the markets could be studied prosperously from the stand point of view of insignificance of what traders are doing. This is the approach that I subscribe to and that is why I participated in this discussion in the first place. I don't believe that it matters what each trader (molecule) is doing. I believe that their common behavior can be modeled fairly precisely.
There is no disagreement here regarding the individual versus the aggregate. However, for my own purposes, I am inclined to replace "fairly precisely" with "reasonably." Since I continue to hold the view that the study of the markets is better described as a social science rather than a pure science because of the human behavior element (either individually or in the aggregate), I am disinclined to attribute very much precision to its study.