The problem is that (from my limited knowledge of economic analysis)
that what economists term 'technical analysis' is not simply
statistical prediction, but also includes predictions made by various
models based on questionable assumptions about the behavior of
'economic man'. Behavioral economics hasn't made many inroads into
technical analysis yet, as far as I know.
And as Lord Meehl (thanks Chris) also showed, trying to 'improve'
statistical prediction by adding non-statistical elements such as
clinical judgements actually reduces their predictive power.
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Jim Clark wrote:
Hi
I'm not too certain what Stephen would include under "technical
analysis", but it does appear that the classic superiority of
actuarial over clinical prediction applies to the stock market as
well as numerous other domains. See:
http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/grove/
096clinicalversusmechanicalprediction.pdf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 23-Nov-08 10:15 PM >>>
On 23 Nov 2008 at 10:35, Christopher D. Green wrote:
In case you were wondering why (scientific) psychology (still)
doesn't
get much respect from natural scientists, psychics are apparently
doing > a booming business during the current business bust.
Why the stock market needs psychics is beyond me. They already have
their
own well-established mediums of the money, those who practice so-
called
"technical analysis". This is the widespread belief that where the
market
is going can be predicted by seeing where it went, with much arcane
mumbo-
jumbo. Its practitioners study charts of market movement the way
astrologers study the planets, with about the same effect.
Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
