Predicting the direction of prices, for example, is mostly psychological modeling. The reason why is because of the incentive, which is a psychological condition.
Financial markets are managed by people with a predictable set of incentives that “addject” a psychological model.
The “addjection” simply means that there is a missing value that we must infer from what we know. This is an additive value–an attributive identity–an “addjective reality” not unlike discovering, or algebraically solving for “x” in a math problem. Without adding this value to the model, the analyst is just guessing. Being right is more accidental than actually narrowing the object of probability.
(When I monitor pop media to see what is trending, the first thing I notice is that analyses tend to be ideologically biased. The phenomenologist, like the intelligence analyst, for example, will do a content analysis to determine its probable affect. Adding adjectives to the objective description does not bias the analysis but adds missing data, which will do more to predict probable, behavioral attributes than a statistical analysis alone. Without “addjecting” the missing variables–which in many respects are deliberately missing to “create” the volatility and exculpatory value of uncertainty–there is less utility to predict the probable effect–the trend.
No, you will not see the term “creative addjection” used to gain predictive utility anywhere else. It is a tool created–added–to predict probable trends, which are determined–described–by incentives.
When I do an analysis I find that stochastics are more a measure of creative addjection to describe objective reality than anything else.
In the final analysis, the question is, what are the addjective measures?)
Is it a coincidence that Randians believe there is no objective, moral measure; and when massive, financial frauds occur there is little or no prosecution? Is it coincidence that there is no effective measure to prevent massive, economic fraud, modeled in a macro dimension, except to prosecute in a court of law where, existing in the aggregate, both the means and ends “just happen” (like Ayn Rand says) with limited, if no liability in priority?
To predict the probable outcome going forward requires a predictive, philosophical model operating to structure the “attributive-risk identity.” Being “too big to fail” is this model, structured to naturally contain “the risk” in everybody’s self interest, yielding to the public good, but by what measure exactly?
For the Objectivist, the answer is, “nothing.”
What exactly is the value of nothing!
It is an addjective attribution, created on demand.
Having the capacity to make demands in the marketplace (the distribution of income) is the predictor.