The Question
There is a question that has divided traders and academics for decades: does technical analysis work?
The question itself may be the problem.
Work how? Work for what? The frame assumes technical analysis has a job: prediction. And if prediction is the job, the critics have substantial ground. Charts cannot reliably forecast future prices. Data mining creates illusory edges. Survivorship bias inflates expectations.
But what if prediction was never the point?
The Mirror
A chart is not a crystal ball. It is a mirror.
Price patterns are the aggregate footprint of human psychology made visible. Anchoring. Prospect theory. The disposition effect. Herding. Four behavioral mechanisms, documented by Nobel Prize-winning research, creating the same recognizable patterns across markets, across decades, across cultures.
When enough traders believe a level matters, their collective action makes it matter. The belief becomes self-fulfilling. Not because of mysticism. Because of concentration.
This is why round numbers act as support and resistance. This is why trends persist beyond what fundamentals justify. This is why breakdowns accelerate and rallies pause at predictable points.
The patterns are not forecasting the future. They are revealing the psychology happening now.
Reflexivity
George Soros calls it reflexivity.
Perceptions influence actions. Actions change reality. Changed reality changes perceptions. A feedback loop that renders the distinction between “fundamental” and “technical” somewhat artificial.
Price is not separate from the psychology observing it. The observer and the observed are entangled. Charts capture this entanglement.
Andrew Lo’s research at MIT validated chart patterns statistically. Head and shoulders, double tops, rectangle formations showed significance using rigorous nonparametric methods. His key insight: the distinction between technical analysis language (support and resistance) and academic language (autocorrelation patterns) is primarily linguistic, not substantive.
Both describe identical phenomena. Both are attempts to name what is visible.
The Debate
The critics and the practitioners are often talking past each other.
Nassim Taleb dismisses technical analysis as astrology. Burton Malkiel argues a blindfolded monkey throwing darts could match expert stock pickers. Eugene Fama’s efficient market hypothesis attacks the very premise.
They are attacking prediction. And on prediction, they are correct.
But sophisticated practitioners abandoned prediction years ago. What they seek now is different: probability assessment. Risk calibration. Regime identification. Present-moment awareness of collective psychology.
A trader who uses charts to identify whether markets are currently trending or ranging, and adjusts strategy accordingly, is not predicting. They are adapting.
A trader who uses support levels to define stop-loss placement, not because price will definitely reverse, but because these levels represent psychological concentration points, is not fortune-telling. They are calibrating risk.
A trader who uses pattern statistics to establish prior probabilities, then updates those priors with current evidence, is not guessing. They are reasoning under uncertainty.
Both the critics and the practitioners can be correct simultaneously. They are simply answering different questions.
The Adaptive Edge
There is a deeper truth here about the nature of knowledge in uncertain systems.
Markets are not deterministic. They are probabilistic, reflexive, adaptive. What worked in the 1980s stopped working in the 2000s because the knowledge itself changed the system. Edge, once discovered, gets arbitraged away.
This is why profitability from technical analysis declined over time in developed markets. Not because the patterns stopped forming. Human psychology remains constant. But because the patterns became crowded. Too many participants, too little remaining inefficiency.
Lo’s Adaptive Markets Hypothesis captures this elegantly: markets are not either efficient or inefficient. Efficiency varies over time based on competition, profit opportunity, and participant adaptability.
The edge is not static. It moves. It hides. It requires continuous adaptation.
The Reframe
James Stanley articulates the reframe directly: “Technical analysis does not work because it does not have a job. It is simply a form of analysis, a way of looking at something. But the trader has a job, and the job is to manage risk. And for that, technical analysis can be helpful.”
The job is not prediction. The job is risk management.
Charts provide context for that job. Current regime. Current volatility. Current concentration points. Current crowd psychology.
Present tense. Always present tense.
The Quantitative Path
The CFA Institute notes that the technical analysis community split in recent decades. A significant portion cleaved off and called themselves quants. They took the same body of knowledge, made it disciplined, backed it with statistics.
The underlying insight remained unchanged: price contains information about collective behavior. That information can be extracted. Systematically. Rigorously. Without mysticism.
What changed was the posture. From “charts predict the future” to “charts describe the present.”
From certainty to probability.
From prophecy to measurement.
The Freedom
There is freedom in this reframe.
If charts do not predict the future, then being wrong about direction is not failure. It is simply new information. The thesis changed. The regime shifted. Adapt.
If patterns are probability distributions rather than deterministic signals, then losses are not refutations. They are expected variance within a system. The question is not whether this trade won or lost. The question is whether the system has positive expectancy across many trades.
If technical analysis is situational awareness rather than fortune-telling, then the anxiety around “missing” signals dissolves. There is only what is visible now. Higher highs and higher lows, or not. Trend strength expanding, or contracting. Volatility compressed, or elevated.
Reading the present requires no prediction. Only attention.
The Reflection
The market is a mirror. What you see depends on what you bring.
If you bring the need for certainty, you will see false prophets everywhere. Or become one yourself.
If you bring the acceptance of uncertainty, you will see what is actually visible: probability distributions, collective psychology, regime characteristics.
Not the future. The present.
That is all charts have ever shown. That is all they need to show.
The path reveals itself to those who walk.
— Ashim
Visual Breakdown — Video Edition
topic: 8
These lessons are part of my ongoing public research on
Risk1Reward3.
Technical Analysis: A Decision Framework for Systematic Trading
Grounded in behavioral science, academic research, and probability mathematics, this video presents the framework systematic traders use to understand what charts actually reveal, so decisions are based on evidence.
→ Watch more: Risk1Reward3 YouTube Channel
Continue Learning
Related frameworks:
- Market Regimes: Adaptation and the Nature of Change
- Market Structure: The Practice of Observation
- Volatility and the Nature of Uncertainty
- Liquidity: The Permission to Execute Your Ideas
- Position Sizing: The Lever of Performance
- Risk Management: The Only Edge You Control
- Expected Value in Trading: The Complete Guide