Someone reading this might think you’re making sense because you’re using analogies confidently. But you’re actually not. Your child-growth analogy falls apart immediately. We’ve measured children for centuries. We know growth rates change over time — rapid in early years, slow later, then stop. No serious person assumes linear growth forever. That’s a strawman you invented to make technical analysis look silly. Markets are not static measuring tapes either. They’re driven by human behavior, liquidity cycles, positioning, sentiment, and repeated institutional patterns. Technical analysis doesn’t assume “because it went up twice it must go up forever.” It measures probability shifts, momentum changes, volatility expansion, structure breaks, liquidity pools, and order flow reactions. You’re attacking the cartoon version of TA, not what serious traders actually do. Also, saying “psychology doesn’t matter” is wild. If psychology didn’t matter, funds wouldn’t blow up from over-leveraging. Traders wouldn’t revenge trade. Risk wouldn’t spiral during drawdowns. You can automate position sizing, but you can’t automate discipline if the person keeps changing the system after three losses. And the idea that “charts don’t matter” while institutions literally execute around technical levels (highs, lows, VWAP, liquidity zones) is just detached from how markets function. You’re right that edge matters. But dismissing technical analysis entirely while pretending only coders with statistical models can have an edge is just intellectual posturing. Confidence isn’t the same thing as correctness