Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (72902)	10/19/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: Ken Beal	Respond to of 176387

--- OT --- Hi Eddie, We always end up here. You make it sound that since no one can explain it to you then it could not possible happen. The people who probably do know probably couldn't care less what you think, or most likely, they want you to continue to think that they DON'T manipulate the stocks to their advantage. This is the same type of argument that got us religion. I like to answer arguments like this with: "We are living in a simulation. Prove me wrong." How do we determine if the world we see is real, or if it was constructed for us? (As in The Truman Show, a very well done movie that replays the same fear that's been dogging us for centuries -- we're living in a book (The Illuminatus Trilogy, a book); we're living in a movie (The Purple Rose of Cairo, a movie); I'm living on a set and the world really does revolve around me (The Truman Show); etc.) I think the root of it is not wanting to take personal responsibility for the condition one is in. If "the Devil made me do it" then that removes from me the responsibility of my own actions, thereby creating a huge contradiction in the way I am wired. I'm thinking about setting up "Religion Cure Centers" which teach people to think for themselves and not blame others for their problems. My "bible"? Nano by Ed Regis. And to take it to one logical extreme: once we develop nanotechnology, we may choose to run some simulations and see what would have happened, for instance, if we developed nuclear capabilities before we developed nanotechnology, and if we live through it. (Postulating that the "original" developed nanotech first.) The punchline: since there can only be a single original, and since these experiments are definitely possible, and we may run perhaps millions of experiments -- then what are the chances that we're currently existing in the original? Tooth Fairies and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and trolls and boogeymen and ghosts can be brought about by the same argument. I believed all of them, and they all are now in their proper place: my gullible childhood. (Notice that we brainwash our children into religion, for the most part, rather than trying to convert adults. Why? Children are more gullible.) The weirdest part about thinking about a plane of existence above this one is the question: "what if they're watching and don't want anyone to know? Am I in danger?" Perhaps if we can convince them that we're intelligent, and not a threat, they may then "download" us into a container ("human" or robot) that we can then experience the "upper" world in. (And how many of these upper worlds do we have to rise into before we reach the original?) Well anyway, I hope you enjoyed the mental somersaults. Hopefully "they" aren't watching. I'm off to the Castle Arggggghhhhhhhh P.S. Okay, I wasn't killed just then, because I wanted to add the following: ;-) P.P.S. What all this boils down to is: your argument is one of speculation. I do not disagree with you, I simply have no evidence that this is the case. And as Richard Dawkins said in his book The Selfish Gene re: the Pope: "If you can believe a thing without evidence, you can believe anything without evidence." So I can play along with your argument (perhaps it's the aliens inhabiting the market makers that are manipulating the stock with their mind control devices), but cannot believe it: Occam's Razor shows that it is market dynamics that move a stock. Present me with evidence and I will change my mind. Good trading!

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (72902)	10/19/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Eddie, you said You make it sound that since no one can explain it to you then it could not possible happen. I think that's a bit of an overstatement. A human explanation for a phenomenon is not required in order that the phenomenon exist. But it is required in order for me to believe the explanation of the phenomenon. Let me put this another way. The fact that stock prices exhibit certain behaviors should not be confused with theories as to why those behaviors exist. The acceptance of the explanation requires proof. For example, plants tend to grow towards sunlight. Now some may believe that it is due invisible rays emanating from the sun which draw the plant in that direction. Still others believe that the movement is due to the accumulation of a plant hormone which tends to elongate cells on the shady side. The fact that plants bend cannot be taken as evidence for either theory. I believe that it is unnecessary to posit that market makers are manipulating the market to explain why so many options expire worthless. I think it is sufficient to explain that on the basis of efficient markets and random walks. Others believe that the behavior is due to the active intervention of market makers or other abnormal interventions. Since they propose the hypothesis th onus is on them to support it with some sort of data. So far, they cannot. Years ago a lot of people believed the world was flat. After all, nobody could see any curvature. They also believed that diseases were caused by ill humors or demons. None of these ideas withstood the crucible of objective proof, and when scientific methods were brought to bear, these ideas rapidly fell away because there was no evidence to support them. But the issue of market makers hasn't even progressed to the point of collecting evidence in favor of that proposition. All I asked is for somebody to provide the motive in the form of demonstrating how it could be done profitably. Nobody has been able to demonstrate this to me. I hope this helps you to understand the difference between acceptance of ideas on the basis of blind faith and objective proof. TTFN, CTC