Few people give The Wave Principle any quotient of validity. But study is important to dispel incredulity.
PART III of THE WAVE PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND THE NEW SCIENCE OF SOCIONOMICS by Rober Prechter begins thus:
Quote:
PART III
THE BASIS OF THE WAVE PRINCIPLE IN BIOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY
The formal construction of the stock market's path implies a mechanism of impulsive cooperation on the part of the market participants and therefore of society at large. Because aggregate stock price movement is intricately patterned, there must be primary causes of its behaviour, forces that shape it. Part III argues that the primary mover of aggregate stock market prices is mass emotional change, which itself must be, and demonstrably is, independent of outside influence. The specifics of market action are determined by the naturally occurring direction, speed and extent of social mood changes.
If the Wave Principle were the only basis for making this claim, then proof would rest entirely upon demonstrating the validity of the Wave Principle. I believe the literature (including Chapters 5 through 7 of this book) has done a fair job of doing so. For many people, though, that is not enough to dispel skepticism. Is there any other basis to believe that mass emotional change is independent of social events and conditions? Are there biological and psychological sources of these emotional imperatives? Science provides insights that respond to this question in the affirmative
The Wave Principle is not merely another theory without basis. Painstaking work and research has been done to prove its validity. The Wave Principle validates itself. Whats more, it has a basis in science, which is gives it even better foundation.
The book I have quoted is 450 pages of pure insight. Any intellectually inclined individual would salivate for such information. I encourage you to take a step into this fascinating world.
Conventional thinkers waste time building shelters when they are unnecessary and then have no shelters when they need them the most. Socionomists do the opposite.