Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
yeah ace, i was talking about stochastics.
never mind.
|
The answer to your question in 226 is, yes. In the context of stochastic, what may appear to be random and irrational can in-fact be predicable. I use the stochastic oscillator frequently when trying to determine entry and exit points for stock market investments, often day to day price swings have no correlation to the intrinsic value of an investment, giving the appearance of irrational price movements. Often those price movements that appear irrational often are not.
In your post 226 question the pattern may be as simple as person #1, given 50/50 probability went left, and then those that follow have a inclination greater the 50% to follow the lead of the person in front.
---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'm getting the impression that ace doesn't deal in uncertainties.
|
I am in a constant search to eliminate uncertainty.
---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
that one can impute the category "rational" to an action without that action involving a conscious choice simply confirms the position i've been arguing over the last few posts.
in the example of crowds tending to break to the left, you have a regularity of action. you can say it's rational by doing what you do--inserting it into a grid or frame that makes it so. so a regularity is rational is a regularity so long as that regularity is social (as over against an automatic reflex).
but that usage of rational has nothing to do with the sense in which ace was trying to use the term, which is restricted to economic theory. it has even less to do with the traditional western philosophical notion of a rational subject.
the term's vaporous.
|
Is this breaking left thing made up, or is there something to it?