On 24 Nov 2008 at 2:15, Jim Clark wrote: > 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 > >
I guess I'd better clear this up. I said "so-called "technical analysis"" which was meant to indicate that I was referring specifically to the loopy system of divination in the stock market based solely on the prior rise and fall of the stock. If someone was unfamiliar with this system, they might think I was referring to the actuarian approach, but I wasn't. Paul Bernhardt had it exactly right in his post (helpful urls too). What is truly scary is how many people in the investment business actually believe this stuff. No wonder we're in the trouble we're in. I also think the actuarian approach (fundamental analysis?) to stock prediction is doomed (see: theory of the efficient market) but at least it's an honest attempt. Yet I'm puzzled by Jim's citing the Grove et al (2000) study in support of its use for predicting the stock market. In their methods, they say "Only studies within the realm of psychology and medicine were included. Thus, we excluded attempts to predict nonhuman outcomes (e.g., horse races, weather, stock market prices)". Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
