Socionomics

[wicherink]

there's a new science called socionomics.

this science claims that people's social mood define trends in society that is reflected in music, clothing but also stockmaket prices. the believe that history's hidden engine is a wave pattern based on the fibonacci ratio's.

the basic wave pattern exists of 5 waves creating a wave pattern that recurrs as a fractal in stock markets, the so called elliot waves. i believe there may be a relation between socionomics and the auric time scale since both are based on a golden mean.

http://www.socionomics.net/films/history/default.aspx

http://www.socionomics.net/films/his...e=1&speed=high

regards
jan

[soup]

something about this reminds me of "the invisible hand" theory, postulated by adam smith - a hand as having five digits which roots in phi along with the idea that there is some invisible influence which subconsciously influences behavior...

okay - so this could get into the idea of higher density beings directing organizational creations using lower density beings as building blocks - that idea that creative endeavors make use of equal to or lower densities within their creations, in more cases than not (i.e. mutations excluded.)

http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/

[jeremy6d]

something about this reminds me of "the invisible hand" theory, postulated by adam smith - a hand as having five digits which roots in phi along with the idea that there is some invisible influence which subconsciously influences behavior...

that is a misapprehension of the idea of an "invisible hand". adam smith's idea was not that an invisible hand influences people, subconsciously or otherwise. rather, he stated that the market allocates goods and services according to demand as if pushed by some invisible hand. the invisble hand is, in fact, a metaphor for the way in which the aggregated actions of all market actors acting in their self interest provides information to which other actors continually adapt and adjust.

this socionomics idea sounds neat, though... could their be mass mind undercurrents capable of empirical study? i don't know...

[soup]

in my dabbles of market study, i resolved that the markets swing largely by emotional influences, i.e. the emotions of optimism and fear, pleasure and pain. for many people fear can also come in the form of "being wrong" which tends to keep people in bad trades as they fail to exit appropriately. when one can uplevel themselves to observe their emotional swings, then it seems they may have a psychological edge because they can more realistically observe their market positions as they vary over time.

emotional market influence seems to tie in with the idea that the emotional body is intermediary between the mental, physical bodies and the spiritual body. in this sense my impression is that this "invisible hand" has potential to either massage our "emotional body" in comfortable ways, or uncomfortable ways.

another aspect to this seems one of magic and manipulation, i.e. the idea that big money can directly convey turningpoint triggers into the market price behavior unseen by the majority of small traders. this can be seen by observing the net trader positions at points in time of market crashes, the big money is rarely positioned on the wrong side. my impression is that these sorts of manipulations could be examples of the type of work that higher density negatives do.

[jeremy6d]

i agree with much of what you're saying, soup; i was just mentioning a point of information about what "invisible hand" refers to.

[soup]

possibly the "invisible hand" resides beyond metaphor to the realms of spritiual reality. i'd argue that most of the people out there get bullied
in some vibrational way which encourages them to act in a certain manner.
furthermore i'd argue that most of the people out there being afflicted
in such ways don't have the words to describe what's happening to them nor the skills to know how to cope with such episodes...

[jeremy6d]

possibly the "invisible hand" resides beyond metaphor to the realms of spritiual reality.

i don't even necessarily reject that kind of speculation. there definitely seems to be an aspect to these complex adaptive systems that hints towards a form of systemic intelligence. the invisible hand, iow, is the collective intelligence of the market, where the interests of every individual actor is held in balance with every other actor.

this directly dovetails with the conversation we're having with buke80, where the distinction between the individual and the greater intelligence of the collective is one without a difference, really, except at which "level" of identity you choose to view the system.

i'd argue that most of the people out there get bullied in some vibrational way which encourages them to act in a certain manner.

another point of information: keep in mind that adam smith was just as opposed to mercantilistic manipulation of markets as he was to the abolition of markets. we do not currently live in a "free market" economy - not by any means. markets, after all, are just a tool to transmit information over a group of actors, and they can serve the interests of oppression and deception when the "rules" are bent to the favor of some elite. however, that's not a problem with the market - it's a problem with the rules.

now it would not surprise me at all if certain market actors were knowledgable of this greater collective intelligence, could read it, and react advantageously to it. but this really isn't in and of itself exploitative, since if it's occurring in a free market everybody benefits from the information that these actions communicate through the system. profit in a free market is the result of allocating resources more efficiently than the competition.

the problem is not their profit-maximizing actions, but their gaming of the system through privilege: special rules that tilt bargaining power in their direction. i firmly believe that the crux of their exploitative power comes from the laws that govern the market, not the market itself. we need to move to a system where this collective intelligence is given more power, rather than being channeled into advantageous directions for connected elites.

[eyez4096]

keep in mind that beyond even "rules" there is the factor of differential human capacity. no one is a perfect agent in the market because no one has perfect knoledge of the system; and some are more knowledgable than others.

add a little game theory to this and realize that, when resources are involved -- renewable or otherwise -- so long as the resource is in some way finite (finite rates of renewal) the more competitors in the free market, the less there is for everyone. the "fishery" model exemplifies this point. now take into account that persons are not perfect agents and this gets exponentially worsened and it takes very little for the system to become dramatically unstable.

tell me though: so long as people ae not perfect agents,and so long as someone is willing to cheat to win, how can a perfect or even well working economy function? here i define well working to be where an economy fairy distributes reward to contribution while also being sustainable and upwardly-mobile?

-charles

[jeremy6d]

keep in mind that beyond even "rules" there is the factor of differential human capacity. no one is a perfect agent in the market because no one has perfect knoledge of the system; and some are more knowledgable than others.

that's true, but it does not necessarily mean the game is unfair. people who have more knowledge are able to identify price discrepancies and move them back towards equilibrium. they make money doing this, but we all benefit from the adjusted prices.

add a little game theory to this and realize that, when resources are involved -- renewable or otherwise -- so long as the resource is in some way finite (finite rates of renewal) the more competitors in the free market, the less there is for everyone. the "fishery" model exemplifies this point.

which is precisely why we need a profit motive to entice suppliers to respond to demand. and in the case of non-reproducible or long-term reproducible resources, we need to set the prices sufficiently high so that the market clears (meaning we achieve the price where the supply can be completely and sustainably sold). that's not a disservice, though - that's the responsible allocation of scarce resources. the market works best when this behavior is incentivized.

keep in mind that the reason this market system works is because we all have insufficient information to allocate resources manually. as we approach social memory, of course this changes, because fraud and deception become impossible to conceal. until then, we need prices to tell suppliers when to ramp up production and when to hold off.

now take into account that persons are not perfect agents and this gets exponentially worsened and it takes very little for the system to become dramatically unstable.

sure; but what's the alternative? markets are the best, most decentralized and democratic system we have for resource allocation. they are not perfect. my only point was that it's better for nobody to be in control than to have a 2 ton gorilla "regulating" the market to some elite's advantage.

tell me though: so long as people ae not perfect agents,and so long as someone is willing to cheat to win, how can a perfect or even well working economy function?

it can function quite well, though imperfectly. hell, even in the soviet union, one of the most oppressive regimes in history, you still had black markets in blue jeans and stuff like that.

markets work better when they are free to develop their own fraud-minimizing institutions, rather than having cartelizing regulatory bodies doing the job. who here really thinks the scc or fta really regulates the financial markets on *our* behalf? the corporations actually like regulation because the costs of complying with regulations serve as a barrier to entry for competitors. plus, nobody sits on those regulatory commissions without being either paid off or a long-time industry insider, anyway. if you can control the entry of competitors into your industry, you have much more freedom to act fraudulently, because your reputation is irrelevant if your customers don't have many other choices to turn to.

here i define well working to be where an economy fairy distributes reward to contribution while also being sustainable and upwardly-mobile?

the rules matter quite a bit if you care about meritocratic distribution.

i think we currently have a market that is artificially distorted towards capital-intensive production, which naturally results in labor not receiving the full return on its effort. this artificial centralization of industry, brought about by subsidized transportation, manipulated money and favored banking interests, and socialized security spending leads industry to act in non-sustainable ways (because they can dump environmental costs on the society at large rather than having to price it like everything else).

think about it: if oil companies had to pay the full cost of supplying oil to the world - the wars to maintain access and compliant governments, the environmental damage, etc. - alternative energy sources would be quite competitive. but since they are subsidized at every step of the way, of course oil is cheaper than any alternative. but that by definition isn't a free market, is it?

as far as upward-mobility, well, i don't think the class-based society we have is a natural phenomenon. i'll leave it at that since it's mere speculation.

[soup]

...we need to move to a system where this collective intelligence is given more power, rather than being channeled into advantageous directions for connected elites...

there may be some universal principles at play which by metaphor may help people integrate hurdles of disparity and bear the burdens of wisdom. one such principle may be "everyone's a trader". one cannot live without trading in some form or another.

another such principle may be related to comparing apples to apples, that a fair trade is one apple for another apple, which seems pointless. so this leads to the idea that even with attitudes of "win-win" and agreement between buyers and selllers: "almost every trade contains a trade disparity."

it seems common that people fall into circumstance of exploitation, as if they feel trapped "to choose" to trade, a certain way. is this breaching free will?

how does collective intelligence of society uplevel itself to a higher state of being? one way may be to ask a simple question: "where is the trade disparity?" from the awareness of those answers can come a basis for better decision making within the mindframes of the traders.