rational or rationalization

does it matter what forms expectations or how these expectations inform "next moves ???

obviously "traders " operate with different "move - position"
choice systems
as well as data bases

my intuition as one
" adds in "
varieties of player/trader  choice  systems
the market behaviour "results" begin to approach each other

a vast if rough and ready cancellation of symetrical tails

and yet we have influenzas that shake the grip of these more or less "normal " shaped  systems

flus  generate among other  outcomes the interetsting

 rational ..if collectively self defeating ..cascade into stampedes

once the rationalists lack the credit lines to hold back the thundering panic herd

if one must either or these assumptions

i share joe stigs paradigm preference for rational agents

over modeling varieties of human trading behaviour

primarily becausing learning looks like convergence to ratex

but i don't think it "matters " in "simulating " the actual collective behaviours of

on going continuosly operating shock struck   markets

where conditions not only are under constant bombardment from "outside "

 but equally and in climactic moments far more so

 constantly generating their own  internal contradiction...ie endogenous shocks
upshot :
uncertainty in the end overwhelms rational "method "

 inherent spontaneous chaotic variability triumphs ..

that is until the market "blows itself up " or is harnessed by a higher authority imposing rules and refs
'

now toss in ...using " other peoples money"
and you are  introducing
agent/ principal incentive contradictions not just inter player contradiction

which needless to add
brings on another set of dimensions entirely

fraud swindle puffery you name

the marketing of "ability " is a competition

with its entrained series of  deceptions fads etc

are markets self correcting along these dimensions ???
maybe if and only if

crashing into a wall is labeled

                           a braking system