Mp808 เขียน:Just to add, I don't think Graham is using "fallacious" in the sense of it being deceptive or หลอกลวง. I think he's trying to say that it is flawed logic.
Thank you. I felt he meant something along the line of "misconception", but I couldn't come up with Thai word for it.
Come to think of it, I should have go to my bookshelf and copy that paragraph from translated version of The Intelligent Investor by คุณพรชัย. That paragraph was from on the preface or introduction section of that book, I'm quite sure.
simplelife เขียน:Maybe my Thai isn't good enough. Let's try this again in English!!
First of all... Sorry, I never want to reply this and start an argument like that. But let me ask this again WHERE did you derive this from? To me, you quoted Graham and then put your own words into his mouth. I have no problem of anyone to like or dislike technical analysis. Be that as it may. But you don't try to support your own belief by quote someone and then put your own idea into it.
Let me first translate to Thai All he said from what you've quoted is
"The one principal that applies to nearly all these so-called 'technical approaches' is that one should buy because a stock or the market has gone up and one should sell because it has declined. This is the exact opposite of sound business sense everywhere else, and it is most unlikely that it can lead to lasting success in Wall Street. In our own stock-market experience and observation, extending over 50 years, we have not known a single person who has consistently or lastingly made money by thus "following the market." We do not hesitate to declare that this approach is as fallacious as it is popular".
Where did you said "he opposed technical analysis that DOESNT MAKE SENSE"? If you have a better quote from him, please do use that instead of this. But with what you've quoted form him, I don't think he was fond of the 'technical approaches' idea very much.
And I now don't want to start an argument on 'technical analysis.' I think we know full well how it will turn out.
Yep, i used the word argument, but there is definitely no argument in the sense of quarrelling between us. Thanks for the input anyway.
Your response supports my point even more. Graham's idea of technical analysis is according to what he wrote; and he BELIEVED or well, from his point of view, PROVED that 'technical analysis' according to that 'precise definition' he gave doesn't work and is illogical!!
THUS, when i said he opposed technical analysis that 'doesnt make sense' . Basically, its the technical analysis according to his definition.
..........Since there are other people who have different takes on technical analysis. For instance, me.
In graham's universe, his idea of technical analysis does not exactly REPRESENT what technical analysis really is, in its entirety.
So when you said, Im not making comments based on the universe of what graham said. It's actually the opposite. Because I know what exists in graham's universe, i know what does not.
That's why I said everything is open to different types of interpretations. In your universe, you might see technical analysis the way graham saw it. Hence, the discrepancy we have here.
There is no right and wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong cause' you're not but I think we're just not exactly on the same page about what technical analysis is. It's all good bro. I get your point. I just want you to understand that the real issue here is that we both perceive technical analysis differently. (so...the issue we have here could be the fact that technical analysis is such a generic term, its way too broad)
I'm saying what Graham said about technical analysis is insufficient. It's part of it definitely, but if i were to use technical analysis based on that logic, hell, I wouldn't be making sense either.
Hence..... he opposed technical analysis that DoeSnT MAKE SENSE.. lol..
และผมเชื่อว่าทุกๆคนที่ใช้ graph นั้น ก้อคิดว่ามัน make sense ในวิธีตีความหมายของเค้า (เรื่องใช้ได้จริงๆหรือหลอกตัวเองเป็นอีกประเด็น, วิธีเดียวที่จะรู้ได้จริงคือการทดสอบ validity และ consistency OVER TIME)
Mp808 เขียน:Sometimes, before a big price movement, technical analysis (TA) will actually catch those things while the fundamentals remain the same. There have also been times when I noticed abnormal price movements and a few days later some good news come out, pushing up prices. Doesn't always happen though.
People's actions leave traces that are sometimes detectable using TA.
Cosign this, since we can never ever get through to all the information available in the universe.
we 'believe' certain price action or behavior is reflecting some kind of 'positive' or 'negative' occurences
speed of obtaining information is a major issue. thus TA acts both as a leading indi or laggin indi, depending on the user's interpretation
In terms of TA as a leading indicator, that means we don't know the fundamental trigger yet. if you put it this way, we basically don't know what we're buying into! we only know there's a 'buy signal' according to some group of people or some individual's price action...... if we dont wait for a fundamental confirmation and buy into the stock, seem stupid? depends on the individual and situation, i can't even say it's not right cause' i dont think anyone here uses TA in isolation. it would be a real issue if TA is used in isolation.
yeah, the human brain instinctively loves to detect patterns so if we view this in terms of a spectrum, the far left being utilization of pure technical in isolation. your brain will very likely mess you up.
Patterns and how our brain works... We are always in an auto-complete mode. For instance, you see a beautiful woman. Then you see some leg hair, an adam's apple, she overexaggerates her hip movements when she walks, wait...and you're in bangkok. There is a high probability you will deduct that she isnt a woman. This is only an example tho, another similar instance, to get an easier understanding there is this concept of degree of freedom, for instance, the traffic lights have three color, red green yellow. you only need to know the 2 colors to know what the third is. This is fact based.
but in reality auto-completion works differently and the information we base our decisions on are not just facts but anything that is part of our brain including emotions, biases etc etc etc.
Mp808 เขียน:Just to add, I don't think Graham is using "fallacious" in the sense of it being deceptive or หลอกลวง. I think he's trying to say that it is flawed logic.
Thank you. I felt he meant something along the line of "misconception", but I couldn't come up with Thai word for it.
Come to think of it, I should have go to my bookshelf and copy that paragraph from translated version of The Intelligent Investor by คุณพรชัย. That paragraph was from on the preface or introduction section of that book, I'm quite sure.
Yeah, I think Graham is basically saying TA is crap.
In terms of TA as a leading indicator, that means we don't know the fundamental trigger yet. if you put it this way, we basically don't know what we're buying into! we only know there's a 'buy signal' according to some group of people or some individual's price action...... if we dont wait for a fundamental confirmation and buy into the stock, seem stupid? depends on the individual and situation, i can't even say it's not right cause' i dont think anyone here uses TA in isolation. it would be a real issue if TA is used in isolation.
Haha there are many times when I don't even bother to look at the fundamentals to be honest, but that's because I'm day trading or swing trading. As long as it's not an infamous stock and it looks like I can make some money, then I go purely technical. If I'm wrong, then I cut it. It's actually very simple to me.
โพสต์
บันทึกไม่สำเร็จ