Clash of Titans: Unleashing Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning

Cracking the Code: Unveiling Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

Updated Feb 20, 2024

Perception Unleashed: Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning

In the era of big data and information overload, mastering the art of reasoning is more critical than ever. Inductive and deductive reasoning are the twin pillars of logical analysis, each offering a unique pathway to understanding the world around us. Inductive reasoning, in particular, demands the rigorous evaluation of evidence before forming conclusions, pushing back against the acceptance of unverified data.

In this landscape of abundant information, the uncritical acceptance of data is a pitfall that can lead to erroneous conclusions. It’s a fact that data can be manipulated, as evidenced by instances where even government statistics have been called into question. The need for an objective and discerning approach when analyzing information is not just advisable; it’s imperative for accurate research and analysis.

Embracing inductive reasoning transforms our approach to data, challenging us to rise above mere assumption and conjecture. This methodical scrutiny leads to more refined and actionable insights. It demands that we seek patterns and trends from specific observations to reach general conclusions, ensuring our analyses are grounded in empirical evidence.

Moreover, inductive thinking doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Deductive reasoning complements it by testing these general conclusions against specific instances, creating a robust framework for understanding and prediction. Together, these modes of thought fortify our analytical capabilities, enabling us to dissect complex information streams and synthesize them into coherent and reliable knowledge.

 

Unlocking New Horizons: The Power of Inductive Reasoning

In investing and personal growth, the principles of Mass Psychology can often seem daunting. However, by combining the power of inductive and deductive reasoning, we can deepen our understanding of these principles and apply them to bring real benefits to our lives.

Inductive thinking teaches us to scrutinize the information presented to us and helps us better understand the basic rules of Mass Psychology. By continually reading and studying the past and present issues of the market update, we can gradually understand how to apply mass psychology to improve not only our investments but also all aspects of our lives. Meanwhile, deductive reasoning helps us to take a more structured approach to evaluating information, allowing us to use the insights gained from inductive thinking to make informed decisions.

The key to success in this area is patience and discipline. Don’t rush into investing before fully understanding the rules and processes. Instead, take the time to study and learn. New opportunities are always presenting themselves, so it’s essential to be ready to embrace them when they arise. By combining inductive and deductive reasoning and applying the principles of Mass Psychology, we can improve our investments and lead a better life overall.

Exploring Logic’s Shadows: Drawbacks of Deductive Reasoning

On the other hand, mass psychology, focusing on inductive thinking, provides a more comprehensive approach to understanding human behaviour and attitudes. Rather than relying on a set of pre-existing facts, inductive thinking begins by observing patterns and behaviours within a group and drawing conclusions based on these observations. This method allows for a deeper understanding of the motivations and trends driving a group. It also provides a more accurate representation of their attitudes and beliefs. Thus, understanding mass psychology is crucial in avoiding the pitfalls of deductive thinking and making informed decisions based on a solid understanding of human behaviour.

However, what if the facts given to you are faulty or, worse yet, fake? Then, no matter how thorough your analysis, the result will be flawed. Sol Palha

From Observations to Conclusions: A Closer Look at Inductive Thinking

Inductive thinking, which forms the basis of mass psychology, is a more sophisticated approach to understanding human behaviour and decision-making. Observing patterns and behaviours in a group and drawing conclusions from those observations allows for a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of motivations and attitudes. This method is advantageous in the financial markets, where a thorough knowledge of human behaviour and decision-making is vital to making informed investment decisions.

Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom of hard work and endless memorization of facts often leads market participants astray from the power of inductive thinking. However, a basic understanding of mass psychology can be valuable for financial market participants. The simple principle of being cautious when everyone else is optimistic, and vice versa, is a starting point for fine-tuning one’s understanding of the potential of this powerful tool.

Unlocking Mass Psychology: The Power of Inductive Thinking

At TI, we understand that a profound grasp of mass psychology is crucial for success in the financial markets. Mass psychology explores groups’ collective behaviours and mindsets, providing critical insights into decision-making processes and actions.

Change and self-improvement begin with a desire for transformation. It requires a commitment to shedding outdated beliefs and adopting a new mindset. This evolution is gradual, like a child’s progression from crawling to walking.

A focus on mass psychology equips individuals and investors with a profound understanding of market dynamics, enabling informed decisions that lead to sustained success. To initiate change, one must first possess the desire to evolve. This evolution demands effort and a willingness to free one’s mind from long-held misconceptions.

By leveraging inductive reasoning, we can analyze market trends and investor behaviour more effectively. This approach allows us to predict market movements more accurately, leading to more strategic investment decisions. Understanding the psychological underpinnings of market fluctuations is not just an academic exercise; it’s a practical tool for achieving financial objectives.

If you seek to change, you must first want change.  Change does not come without effort; effort is necessary because one has to deprogram one’s mind from old concepts that one was falsely led to believe. Sol Palha

 

Inductive Versus Deductive Reasoning: Unlocking The Mind’s Potential

Your mind has been trained for decades to accept what mainstream media and so-called experts deemed to be true.  Sol Palha

At TI, we believe in challenging conventional wisdom and the notion of expertise. Our approach is grounded in healthy scepticism, recognizing that our minds have been trained for years to accept information from mainstream media and perceived experts without question.

We do not view anyone, including ourselves, as an ultimate authority. Our focus is on constantly learning and growing. Furthermore, we respect those who approach their work with a humble and open mind, acknowledging that there is always more to learn and discover.

We believe the best way to approach any subject, including the financial markets, is by constantly seeking new information and challenging old assumptions with an open and curious mindset. By keeping an open mind and a willingness to learn, we can continue to grow and improve our understanding of the markets and the world around us.

Idiots are forever clamouring for attention while the wise desperately seek to avoid it for they know their efforts are best directed towards seeking more knowledge rather than wasting time basking in the light of false glory.  Sol Palha 

 

Insights from Diverse Minds: Exploring the Power of Inductive Thinking

Inductive thinking is a critical skill in the arsenal of any strategic thinker, particularly in fields where understanding mass behaviour is vital to success. It’s a method that builds conclusions from the ground up, starting with specific observations and moving towards broader generalizations. This approach is not just about making educated guesses; it’s about establishing a foundation of probability that informs smarter, more strategic decisions.

In the financial markets, where investors’ collective behaviour often dictates price movement, inductive reasoning is indispensable. It allows analysts to identify market trends and investor behaviour patterns, leading to more accurate predictions and strategies. For example, by observing that certain stocks tend to rise after upbeat earnings reports, traders can inductively predict similar movements in the future and plan their trades accordingly.

Inductive reasoning also embraces the possibility of error, a powerful catalyst for growth and learning. It acknowledges that conclusions are provisional and subject to change with new evidence. This humility in the face of knowledge is not a weakness but a strategic advantage. It keeps minds open and alert to new data that can refine or overturn existing beliefs, ensuring that strategies remain robust and responsive to the latest market dynamics.

By sharpening inductive reasoning skills, professionals can navigate the complexities of the financial markets with greater agility and accuracy. They can anticipate trends, adapt to new information quickly, and make decisions informed by a solid base of empirical evidence and thorough analysis. This approach is essential for anyone looking to excel in environments where understanding and predicting human behaviour is paramount.

 

 

 

Deductive Reasoning Unveiled: From Premises to Precision

Deductive reasoning, a potent tool, crafts precise conclusions from accepted premises, which is pivotal for scientific discovery. From Euclid to Einstein, history’s great minds showcase deduction’s prowess in unravelling complexities, making it the beacon of illumination.

Unlocking Insights with Deduction: Follow the Logic Trail

The deduction, a scalpel in problem-solving, strips uncertainty layers, revealing clear premises. Embraced by scientific pioneers, deduction remains a trusted path to enlightenment, demanding only an open, questioning mind.

Inductive Thinking Explored: From Patterns to Insights

Inductive thinking, a journey of discovery, forms broad generalizations from observed patterns. Unlike deduction, it flows from particulars to comprehensive understanding. Inductive thinkers, like detectives, connect dots, reshaping perspectives with real-world insights, propelling us to higher understanding.”

Inductive Thinking: Elevating Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

 

Inductive reasoning is a cornerstone of empirical research and strategic decision-making. It allows us to draw generalizations from specific observations, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of our conclusions. This method of reasoning is not just about observing the world but about piecing together a puzzle from the fragments of data we gather, leading to a comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand.

The precision of inductive thinking lies in its foundation on empirical evidence. Observing patterns and frequencies can predict future occurrences with a higher degree of certainty. This is not mere speculation; it’s a calculated inference based on a series of observations akin to a scientist hypothesizing about natural phenomena after rigorous experimentation.

Inductive reasoning also catalyzes creativity. It pushes the boundaries of conventional thought and encourages the exploration of new ideas. We can generate innovative solutions and adapt to evolving scenarios by examining data and recognising patterns. This is evident in various fields, from technology to social sciences, where inductive reasoning has led to groundbreaking theories and inventions.

Inductive thinking is invaluable when it comes to decision-making. It allows us to sift through data, consider multiple factors, and arrive at well-informed decisions. This is particularly crucial in environments where the cost of error is high, such as financial markets or medical diagnostics. Professionals in these fields can minimize risk and optimize outcomes by relying on inductive reasoning.

Furthermore, inductive reasoning is instrumental in problem-solving. It helps identify the root causes of issues by analyzing patterns and anomalies. This analytical approach is essential for developing practical solutions to complex problems in business strategy, public policy, or engineering.

 

 Dependence on Quality of Observations

The effectiveness of inductive reasoning relies heavily on the quality and accuracy of the underlying observations. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

If the initial data contains errors or biases, they are likely to propagate throughout the inductive process and taint resulting conclusions. As in your example, a mistake in recording experimental results could mislead the scientist down an incorrect path of reasoning.

This highlights the importance of rigorous methodology when making observations as the basis for induction. Utmost care, precision and scepticism are needed. Multiple observers, calibration, fact-checking and other practices can help safeguard against such problems.

The effectiveness of inductive reasoning heavily depends on the quality of the observations. If the observations are inaccurate or flawed, the conclusions drawn will also be flawed. For example, if a scientist makes an error while recording data during an experiment, their conclusions based on that data will be incorrect.

Uncertainty and Lack of Final Proof

Finally, inductive reasoning can never provide absolute certainty or final proof. The problem of induction, as famously discussed by philosophers like David Hume, highlights the uncertainty inherent in drawing general conclusions based on observed patterns or specific instances.

Inductive reasoning assumes that future observations will continue to conform to past observations. However, this assumption cannot be proven, as a single contradictory observation can undermine the generalization. The example of the swans perfectly illustrates this point. Even if someone has observed numerous white swans, the discovery of a single black swan disproves the generalization that “all swans are white.”

The limitations of inductive reasoning include:

1. Reliability: Inductive reasoning is subject to the reliability of the observations and data on which it is based. Their generalisation may be unreliable if the observations are limited, biased, or flawed.

2. Scope: Inductive reasoning is limited to the scope of the observations made. It cannot provide universal or absolute truths, as it is based on specific instances or patterns.

3. Bias: Cognitive biases, such as confirmation or availability, can influence inductive reasoning, leading to erroneous generalizations.

4. Certainty: Inductive reasoning does not provide absolute certainty or final proof. The conclusions drawn are probabilistic, and there is always a degree of uncertainty associated with them.

Due to these limitations, it is essential to use inductive reasoning cautiously and supplement it with other forms of reasoning, such as deductive or empirical testing, whenever possible. This helps to mitigate the uncertainty and limitations inherent in inductive reasoning and provides a more robust and comprehensive approach to understanding the world.

Deductive Reasoning: Precision in Logical Structure

Deductive reasoning is a logical process where conclusions are drawn from a set of premises; it is the backbone of hypothesis testing and theorem proving. This form of reasoning is binary—it concludes what is necessarily true if the premises are true, leaving no room for uncertainty within its framework. Deductive logic is essential in fields where structure and certainty are paramount, such as mathematics, computer science, and formal logic.

The precision of deductive reasoning lies in its strict adherence to logical rules, ensuring that conclusions are incontrovertibly proper, provided the premises are accurate. This method is exemplified in mathematical proofs, where each step follows logically from the last, leading to an irrefutable conclusion. In the legal system, deductive reasoning is used to apply general laws to specific cases, ensuring consistent and fair outcomes.

While deductive reasoning is highly reliable, it is also limited by the necessity for initial premises to be correct. Any error in the premises can lead to incorrect conclusions despite the logical process being sound. This highlights the importance of verifying the initial statements upon which deductions are based.

In contrast to the probabilistic nature of inductive reasoning, which deals with likelihoods and generalizations from specific instances, deductive reasoning provides a clear, definitive pathway from hypothesis to conclusion. It is a critical component of scientific research, particularly in the testing phase, where hypotheses are confirmed or refuted based on empirical data.

In summary, deductive reasoning is a powerful tool for deriving certainty from known principles. Its applications span various disciplines, providing a framework for developing theories, conducting experiments, and formulating arguments precisely and clearly. Despite its constraints, deductive reasoning remains a fundamental aspect of rigorous academic inquiry and problem-solving.

Delving deeper into the examples above, let’s intricately explore the nuances of inductive and deductive thinking by offering precise and detailed instances to provide a more illuminating perspective on these two distinct cognitive processes.

Inductive Reasoning: Archimedes’ Principle

Archimedes’ discovery of the principle of water displacement is a prime example of inductive reasoning. He observed that the water level rose as objects were submerged and identified a consistent pattern. From these specific instances, he generalized a broader principle: a submerged object displaces an amount of fluid equal to its volume. This principle has become a fundamental concept in physics, particularly fluid dynamics, and is applied in designing ships and understanding buoyancy.

Deductive Reasoning: Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes’ detective work is often cited as deductive but includes inductive elements. In cases where he determines a thief’s handedness, he starts with the general knowledge of how left-handedness can affect behaviour and looks for specific evidence to support this. If the evidence aligns, he deduces the thief’s handedness. Holmes’s approach is a blend of deduction and induction, using broad knowledge to inform specific observations and vice versa.

Inductive Reasoning in Philosophy: Aristotle

Aristotle’s philosophical method involved observing specific instances and drawing broader inferences, a process of inductive reasoning. By studying animal behaviour and characteristics, he concluded that all animals share a common life principle: the soul. This inductive generalization formed a core part of his philosophical and biological theories, although it is subject to revision with new observations and interpretations.

These examples illustrate the dynamic interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning in advancing knowledge across various fields. Inductive reasoning allows for the formulation of new theories based on observation, while deductive reasoning provides a framework for testing and confirming these theories. Both are essential for the progression of scientific, legal, and philosophical thought

Deductive Reasoning in Mathematics: Euclid’s Geometry

Euclid’s “Elements” is a seminal work in mathematics, showcasing the power of deductive reasoning. Starting with axioms and postulates, Euclid constructed a geometric system where each theorem is a logical extension of these fundamental truths. His systematic approach involved deriving new theorems through logical steps, each building upon the last. This rigorous process formed the foundation of Euclidean geometry and influenced mathematical thought for over two millennia.

Inductive Reasoning: Weather Patterns

Observing that rain often follows when the wind blows from the east; one might use inductive reasoning to predict future weather. The number and consistency of past observations strengthen this reasoning. While not providing absolute certainty, this pattern-based prediction is a practical application of inductive reasoning, allowing for reasonable forecasting based on empirical evidence.

Deductive Reasoning: Syllogism

A syllogism is a classic form of deductive reasoning consisting of a central premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example, suppose the major premise states that all mammals are warm-blooded, and the minor premise asserts that elephants are mammals. In that case, the conclusion that elephants are warm-blooded is necessary. This logical structure is fundamental to deductive reasoning, providing a clear pathway from general principles to specific findings.

Deductive Reasoning in Mathematics: Proving Statements

Mathematical proofs often rely on deductive reasoning to establish the truth of statements. For instance, if it is known that all numbers divisible by two are even, and 14 is divisible by 2, then it can be deduced that 14 is an even number. This process applies general principles to specific cases, demonstrating the precision and reliability of deductive reasoning in mathematics.

Deductive Reasoning in Mathematics

In mathematics, deductive reasoning is essential for proving statements with precision. The process begins with general, accepted principles or axioms and applies logical steps to reach a specific conclusion. For example, the principle that any number divisible by 2 is even (Premise 1) is a universally accepted truth in mathematics. When we identify a specific number, such as 14, that meets this divisibility condition by 2 (Premise 2), we can deduce that 14 is an even number. This conclusion is not just likely; it is inevitable, given the premises are correct. This example underscores the role of deductive reasoning in establishing mathematical truths, demonstrating the logical progression from general rules to specific instances.

 

The Scorpion and the Frog: Exploration of Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

The fable of the scorpion and the frog serves as a rich illustration of both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning:

In the narrative, the frog initially hesitates to assist the scorpion across the river, fearing it will be stung. The scorpion’s argument that doing so would be counterproductive as it would lead to drowning is initially persuasive. However, the scorpion eventually stings the frog, claiming it’s in its nature to do so. From this, one could inductively reason that scorpions, or creatures, will act according to their nature, even when it seems illogical or self-destructive. This reasoning is based on the specific behaviour observed in the story and generalizes a principle about the scorpion’s inherent traits.

Deductive Reasoning:

Conversely, the story can be dissected through deductive reasoning. Suppose one starts with the premise that scorpions naturally sting, and the character in the story is a scorpion. In that case, it logically follows that this scorpion will sting, even if it means both the scorpion and the frog will drown. This conclusion directly results from applying a general principle to a specific case within the story.

The fable exemplifies how inductive and deductive reasoning can be derived from the same scenario. Inductive reasoning allows for formulating a hypothesis based on observation (the scorpion stings despite the risk), while deductive reasoning concludes an established generalization (scorpions sting by nature). Both reasoning methods are integral to various fields of study and everyday decision-making, providing frameworks for understanding and predicting behaviour.

Inductive and deductive reasoning are both essential components of the scientific method, each serving a distinct purpose at different stages of the research process.

Inductive Reasoning in the Scientific Method:

Inductive reasoning is typically utilized in the initial stages of scientific inquiry. Scientists begin by making observations and collecting data. Through induction, they identify patterns and regularities within this data. From these observations, scientists can infer general principles or formulate new hypotheses. This bottom-up approach allows for generating theories that can explain the observed phenomena.

For example, observing that a certain type of plant thrives in acidic soil conditions across various environments may lead a scientist to propose a broader hypothesis that acidity is a factor in the plant’s growth.

Deductive Reasoning in the Scientific Method:

Deductive reasoning comes into play after hypotheses have been established through induction. Scientists use deductive reasoning to test these hypotheses. This involves taking the general principles or theories and making specific predictions about what should be observed if the hypothesis is correct. Experiments are then designed to test these predictions.

For instance, if the hypothesis is that acidity promotes the growth of a particular plant, a scientist might deduce that if the soil’s acidity decreases, the plant’s development will be adversely affected. An experiment can then be conducted to test whether this prediction holds.

Interplay of Inductive and Deductive Reasoning:

The scientific method is not a linear process but rather an iterative one, where inductive and deductive reasoning are used in conjunction. After the hypotheses are tested, the results are analyzed. If the experimental findings support the hypotheses, the theories are strengthened, and deductive reasoning confirms the inductive generalizations.

However, if the results contradict the hypotheses, scientists must use inductive reasoning again to modify or develop new theories. This may involve making new observations or considering alternative patterns in the data. The revised hypotheses will then be subjected to further deductive testing.

 

Relationship between inductive and deductive reasoning

The relationship between inductive and deductive reasoning is dynamic and reciprocal, particularly evident in the context of scientific inquiry. Both forms of reasoning are not only complementary but also interdependent, each playing a vital role in the advancement of knowledge.

Inductive Reasoning: The Generator of Hypotheses

Inductive reasoning is often the starting point in the scientific process. It involves observing specific instances and generating broader generalizations or hypotheses from these observations. This bottom-up approach allows scientists to formulate theories explaining the patterns they observe in the natural world. Inductive reasoning is inherently creative and exploratory, seeking to build new theoretical structures from empirical data.

Deductive Reasoning: The Tester of Hypotheses

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is a top-down approach. It starts with the generalizations or theories developed through inductive reasoning and uses them to predict specific instances that can be tested. Deductive reasoning is critical for hypothesis testing because it allows scientists to apply their theories to new situations and to predict outcomes. If the predictions are confirmed through experimentation, the theory is strengthened; if not, the theory may need to be revised.

The Symbiotic Relationship

The interplay between these two forms of reasoning is cyclical and iterative. Inductive reasoning proposes new ideas, which deductive reasoning then scrutinizes. This scrutiny may lead to the initial hypotheses’ confirmation, rejection, or modification. When hypotheses are modified, inductive reasoning is again employed to interpret the new data and refine the theories. Thus, the scientific method is a continuous dialogue between induction and deduction.

Balancing Strengths and Limitations

Each form of reasoning has its strengths and limitations. Deductive reasoning provides logical certainty, but its conclusions are only as valid as its premises. It cannot introduce new knowledge independently; it can only draw out the implications of what is already known. Inductive reasoning, while more open to generating new knowledge, does not provide the same level of certainty as deduction because its conclusions are based on probability rather than logical necessity.

Using inductive and deductive reasoning, scientists can create a robust framework for understanding the world. Inductive reasoning allows for expanding knowledge by introducing new theories, while deductive reasoning ensures that these theories are rigorously tested. Together, they form the backbone of the scientific method, each compensating for the other’s weaknesses and enhancing the other’s strengths. This relationship ensures that scientific inquiry remains both innovative and reliable.

Conclusion: The Balance of Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

In conclusion, inductive and deductive reasoning are complementary methods that, when combined, provide a comprehensive approach to understanding and solving problems. Deductive reasoning offers a structured approach to validate hypotheses with logical certainty, while inductive reasoning allows for generating new hypotheses based on observed patterns. Together, they enable a robust hypothesis formation and testing process, essential for scientific inquiry and practical decision-making.

 

 Stimulating Articles That Encourage Reflection

How to Stop Losing Money in the Stock Market

Break the Cycle: How to Stop Losing Money in the Stock Market

Mar 8, 2024 Strategies on How to Stop Losing Money in the Stock Market Picture this - from the moment ...
Uptrend Stocks: Navigating the Renaissance of Market Prosperity

Uptrend Stocks: Navigating the Renaissance of Market Prosperity”

Mar 6, 2024 In the dynamic theatre of the stock market, uptrend stocks emerge as the protagonists in the narrative ...
Blooms and Busts: Navigating the Tulip Bubble Chart Phenomenon

Blooms and Busts: Navigating the Tulip Bubble Chart Phenomenon

Mar 5, 2024 Tulip Mania Unveiled: Decoding the Tulip Bubble Chart Phenomenon The Tulip Bubble Chart encapsulates a financial frenzy ...
herd mentality

Herd Mentality: Understanding the Pros and Cons of Conformity

March 5, 2024 Surviving the Herd Mentality: Divergence as a Crucial Survival Strategy Introduction Herd mentality, a pervasive force, drives ...
Projected Silver Prices: Setting Sail for Precious Metal Ascension

Projected Silver Prices: Setting Sail for Precious Metal Ascension

Projected Silver Prices: Navigating the Precious Metal's Future Updated March 1, 2024 Following the introduction, we will unveil our anticipated ...
Stock Bubble lead to crashes which lead to A buying Opportunity

Stock Bubble: Act Quickly or Lag Behind

Stock Bubble: Machiavelli Meets Lynch Approach Updated Feb 29, 2024 Riches come to those who seek them and not those ...
panic selling

Panic Selling Mastery: Buying the Fear & Selling the Joy

Mastering Panic Selling: The Tactical Investor's Strategic Response to Market Turbulence Updated Feb 27, 2024 Many subscribers (mistakenly) assumed that ...
Leading Economic Indicators

Are Economic Indicators Finally In Sync With the Stock Market

Leading Economic Indicators: Unveiling the Secrets of the Stock Market Updated Feb 27, 2024 Imagine navigating the vast ocean of ...
Smart Investing Unveiled: Perception Manipulation and Sentiment Indicator

Perception Manipulation: Mastering the Market with Strategic Insight

s Perception Manipulation & Investing: Sentiment Indicators Unveiled Updated Feb 24, 2024 By the ripe age of 18, the average ...
The Contrarian Outlook - Unleashing Success

Contrarian Outlook: A Pathway to Breakthrough or Breakdown

Contrarian Outlook: Balancing the Scale of Success and Risk Updated Feb 24, 20234 Introduction Adopting a Contrarian Outlook could be ...
Market Uncertainty: the emotion that separates traders from speculators

Market Uncertainty: A Challenge for Investors

Feb 22, 2024 Discerning the Hazards of Market Uncertainty with Poise Uncertainty, a state of being unsure or not knowing, ...
Stock market basics for beginners: do or die

Stock market basics for beginners: Adapt or Die

Stock market basics for beginners Updated Feb 22, 2024 A Contrarian Investor does not follow the Herd Sol Palha  Investing ...
Why Covered Calls are a Bad Strategy

The Unfortunate Truth: Why Covered Calls are a Bad Strategy

Feb 21, 2024 INTRODUCTION Covered calls have emerged as a favoured choice among the myriad methods, glittering with the illusion ...
DJU Index: To buy or not to

DJU Index: To Buy or Flee? Unraveling the Market Mystery

DJU Index: Decoding Signals – Is it Flashing Bullish or Bearish in the Market? Feb 21, 2024 Introduction: Intriguing Developments ...
Stock Market Psychology 101: Learn, Thrive, and Profit

Stock Market Psychology 101: Learn, Thrive, and Profit

Feb 20, 2024 Understanding Stock Market Psychology Through Charts for Beginners Understanding the stock market is akin to deciphering an ...

Why market crashes are buying opportunities

Mass Psychology Introduction

How to boost your immune system: Simple Ideas

Buy When There’s Blood in the Streets: Adapt or Die

 

References for Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning

Talks with the Devil” by Peter Ouspensky

Any monkey can beat the market” by Forbes

Mental Model: The Illusion of Choice” by JoshuaKennon.com

Why Most Investors Lose Money — And How Not To Be One Of Them” by Nasdaq