autology and absence of new approaches

I have shortly come across an aphorism: "Genius is not to the effect, that nothing can be added thereto, but it is to the effect that nothing can be deleted there from".

If You go through numerous books on forex at this aspect angle, You are sure to surprisingly find out that 90-100% of their contents may be subject to withdrawal. WHY?
BECAUSE nothing new and 100% correct is offered therein. Instead, reiteration is going on of what is familiar to any professional, since everyone is itching to exhibit one's originality by way of retelling: a paramount authority of FA over forex exchange rates; continuation and reversal patterns; a stop-loss importance; a divergence being a component of a trend reversal, etc., i.e. book-to-book travelers.

"An outstanding forex trading techniques" and "a genius scholar", etc., making their appearance in books' abstracts and annotations are off springs of 1% originality added up by an author to 99% of common knowledge.

Sale is publisher's primary target, giving birth to "genius" mediocrities and plagiarism. Standing separately among these books are opuses by B. Williams, being admired and scrutinized regularly by the majority of scholars and by myself. But EVEN HE cannot be qualified as "genius" with account to the above formula. He is rather "eccentric" than "genius".

The thing is not, that his technique is addenda-allowing (this fact backs the correct Williams's choice of the chaos theory to be applied to forex) and I easily managed to add 11 trend-assassinating bullets to the 5 of Williams. The thing is that a number of Williams's postulates ARE WRONG and thus loss- inflictive. These can be and should be subject to removal.

CONCLUSION: I guess, it's understandable by now, that script-writing has turned to be business for scholars, incorporating additional advertising and additional charges for their students. However, the above is not worth millions forex losers sacrifice.

Much more respect-triggering is Warren Buffet, having made a minimum of USD40 bn at the stock market without writing any books on his trading tactics. W. Buffet is the world's second-rich man after Bill Gates, although this fact being thoroughly doubtable. B. Gates is supposed to declare the whole of his income obtainable from the Microsoft Corporation, whereas W. Buffet, being a trader, is sure to deem himself entitled to show the Inland Revenue what he really wants to.

The difference is fairly evident. The profit obtained from US companies, constituting the Gates official fortune major portion, may be kept track of, as well as the offshore profits may sometimes be properly checked. But Buffet's profits attractable at all. Do You expect a man, lending his own daughter a sum of USD20 against a receipt, to allow ALL of his profits to be taxable by state? Or a moderate portion of profits is sufficient, yeah? It is entirely his job, whereas we are to learn to gain at least a spoonful of what he has acquired during 40 years of his activity at the stock exchange.

Thus, to cut it short: a classical forex literature exhibits but an anti-scientific unsystematic nature, constituting a "crise de genre" and triggering losses among 90% of beginners, abandoning forex market.

In what does science differ from a philistine and amateur effort? In a systematic and objective nature, in a methodology perspective. In there any of the above to be found with scholar literature on forex? No, but instead there is in abundance:

A. Tautology and absence of new approaches. From book to book world-distinguished scholars feed traders (as if the latter were silly little chaps) with stories about R&S levels importance, technical indicators, continuation and reversal patterns, etc., which is as interesting and instructive for a professional trader as ABC reading is for a professor of philology.

B. Absence of integrity. Individually, it is all clear: Elliot waves, Fibonacci levels, resistance levels, reversal patterns, etc. But what's the way it all is interconnected and integrated? In what way it is influential over each other? What is primary and what is secondary? Imagine a doctor diagnoses and cures patients without a slightest idea of interaction of digestive, cardio-vascular and other systems.