As a backup explanation, my username is derived partly from the content of this book
Here is the intro of introduction resume :
“As an approach to research, technical analysis has suffered because it is a "discipline" practiced without discipline. In order for technical analysis to deliver useful knowledge that can be applied to trading, it must evolve into a rigorous observational science.”
And after extensive facts based academic testing, here is the dominant conclusion extracted from the book (quoting user reviews summing it up well by the following statements) :
it will certainly shed light on the dubious nature of technical analysis. The author questions the validity of TA repeatedly and if you had a lot of faith in TA, good luck holding on to those beliefs. Now, as a victim of confirmation basis (believing what you believe in) this book was sad in that my faith in TA is now harmed. The author's premise is that traditional TA is worthless and he makes a compelling case. However, his own thoughts about how evidence-based ta (EBTA) is more effective is weak in that it will not be easy to implement. In summary, the book is somewhat entertaining, sad for TA enthusiasts, and most of all.. it questions everything you think.
The problem is that most market practitioners use methods with little or no scientific basis. Even if shown evidence of faulty logic, people continue to believe its validity. This is also true in the medical profession as Aronson illustrated and which scared the daylights out of me.
For anything to be scientifically testable, it must be possible to prove it wrong. However, many of the technical analysis disciplines cannot be defined. Thus they cannot be disproved. Consequently they have no scientific validity. They may have some anecdotal importance, but true science is lacking.
For STATITICIANS with an interest in trading markets--You'll likely walk away with the feeling: "Yeah, that's what I've been thinking for years, nice to see someone took the time to debunk the TA myth."
For TECHNICIANS (traders) with an interest in statistics--You'll likely walk away thinking "You gotta be kidding. There are a hundred good books which can show you how to use TA to make money. This book sucks."
From thousands of measures handled in an attempted professional approach, the book demonstrates that TA as we know it, is mostly bullshit and has no predictive intrasec value.
The very next step is to realize that untill now, you’ve been tricked / lured about a lot of topics.
Just think a minute how much technical analysis is represented and given as support material by trading platforms and broker info / teaching services. TA is maybe the first research field you will spend time at and get stuck at. Why do these corporates guide you towards TA in the first place ? One reason : for business purposes, guess what, you are the target of products.
Since you’re insecure and lost about discovering the markets, it’s the easy way out to give you some marks that you die for (“look, with this tool and mathematical formula, you can predict the future” haha while it’s really closer to a management game against fortune). You ask to gather some confidence to trade and they deliver it to you. Why ? to make you trade and pay subscriptions and commissions/fees on volume (depending on their business models, unline Darwinex).
Conclusion : wrong way baby, you’ll have to provide a lot more work than relying on what you’re fed with and show more innovative skills to start competing against the sharks (why most of the pro space use very little TA / why you won’t see indicators except some market profile at trading desks ? This isn’t because of over-pretentious luxury, it is because usually it won’t bring an edge but will keep your head under water instead).
Sorry about the rant : had to let it go at least once 🤭
If you read it all, this is my opinion why anti-DARWINs will find a niche and bring a welcomed attempt to treat the other side of the mirror. I’m glad that Darwinex has realistic views and an open mind on such subject, aside from selecting/filtering the excellent from the ugly, which they already do pretty well !