As a schoolboy I did not do well at History. Maybe things are different now, but in those far-off days to succeed in the subject one had to be able to memorise a large number of seemingly arbitrary, unrelated facts. I found the lack of pattern in the subject an obstacle to understanding, and turned for comfort to Maths, where all is clean and tidy.
In this book, George Lindsay comes to the rescue of we lovers of numbers. Look, he says, history is just a series of cycles. Forget about all that messy human stuff about the causes of events and concentrate on the peaks and troughs. And, since these cycles continue into the future in the same way, history becomes a way to predict events as well as analyse them in retrospect. He begins by identifying one type of event as most important:
Our starting point is always an agitation. An agitation is a heightened consciousness and increased activity among a large number of people at a specific moment in time, It is normally directed toward a certain end. An agitation may be physical in nature, in which case it usually involves bloodshed, or it may be intellectual or emotional.
Note Lindsay's precise, scientific language. The next concept to grasp is the interval. Lindsay says that agitations occur about 40 years apart. So for example the French Revolution of 1789 is followed by the July Revolution of 1830. His next example is less clear: he says that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was somehow completed in 1957, though the only actual event of 1957 he gives is the launch of Sputnik. One might almost get the idea that Lindsay is trying to fit the facts of history to his theory, rather than the other way round. Fortunately it is comfortably elastic with plenty of room for adjustment:
The number of years we count forward from an agitation varies. It is often about 40 years, but can be as little as 39 or as much as 41. In many other cases, the median figure is 36 years, which can be as little as 35 or as much as 37 years.
Where the agitation is an unsucessful revolt it must be treated differently, he says. These events supposedly occur about 55-57 years apart, but just in case the facts prove recalcitrant:
There's also a third interval, one with the rather wide latitude of 64 to 69 years.
Lindsay's approach to history, with its need to tie events together regardless of meaning or any common causation, leads him to make some bizarre connections when he attempts to bring artistic endeavours into the picture:
Tennyson's Poems of 1842 was a literary landmark. The British suffered a damaging defeat at Majuba in 1881.
Is there a military defeat 40 years after every "literary landmark"? I suppose there must be. There's certainly no end of connections once you start to look for them:
Henry James wrote of relays of "ambassadors" who crossed the ocean to save a young American from being corrupted by an alien culture. Count the 40-year interval and you come to 1941. Special Ambassador Kurusu joined the resident Ambassador Nomura in Washington, and they warned our heedless government that the United States would cross the ocean and intervene in Asia at its own peril. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor shortly afterward.
Lindsay arrived at his ideas about history from a background in stock price forecasting. He made his living as what is called a "technical analyst", one who tries to guess at future prices by looking at charts of past ones. As he puts it here:
Over a span of two decades, I have made perhaps 300 distinct predictions of stock prices which have come true with varying degrees of accuracy.
This implies, though it does not say so directly, that he did better than chance in his forecasting. If so, why he did not simply invest his own money and become vastly rich is a bit of a mystery. (He could have turned one dollar into millions if the profit on each of his 300 predictions was anything over a mere 5%, for example) .
Technical analysis, despite a lack of evidence in its favour, is still going strong. There's a lot of books and software on the market supposedly to aid the would-be investor, though again it is strange that those behind them don't keep their valuable "secrets" to themselves. Philanthropists all, I presume.
Technical history - which is what Lindsay also called his "other history" - has definitely not caught on in the same way. Too many conservative thinkers unwilling to give up the idea that events have causes, the fools. Since 2009 marks the book's 40th birthday, I boldly predict that in that year, or the next, or 2023, or thereabouts, something will happen that is vaguely related. Then you'll all believe!
Dear Mr. Armstrong, I am…
Dear Mr. Armstrong, I am interested with this book. May i have a copy/scan of the document "the other history"?
Thanks in advance. Regards.
Dear Mr. Armstrong, I am
Dear Mr. Armstrong, I am interested with the work of Mr. Lindsay. May i have a copy/scan of the document "the other history"?
Thanks in advance. Regards.
For Utku or anyone else who
For Utku or anyone else who wants the book scans can be had for £25, send me your email using the form at https://oddbooks.co.uk/contact and I'll send a Paypal invoice for the amount.
yes i can pay you can send
yes i can pay you can send the payment details on my email above
Hie Alfred Armstrong can i
Hie Alfred Armstrong can i have a pdf copy of the other history so that i can judge for myself
Sure, if you want to pay for
Lindsay famously drew a chart
Lindsay famously drew a chart of his expectations for the stock market over the entirety of the decade of the 1970s and it was remarkably accurate. The only "miss" of any consequence was the severity of the decline into the 1974/5 bear marekt low. But, as I recall, the actual timing of the peaks and valleys and most of the prices he expected . . . were spot on. This, as much as anything, made him famous for his forecasting abilities. Note, in The Other History book, Lindsay appears to predict the end of the old USSR toward the back of the book and at the time it actually sort of dissolved. I don't have my copy any longer but it would be nice if someone would show that prediction here. Finally, Lindsay was more of an "artist" than a "quant." His was based on seeing things others could not. It makes his work hard to duplicate. And, his very best advice, I think, was that an investor could study the markets and would likely have one great investment opportunity over a lifetime . . . to test his findings and convictions, one that could make the investor very wealthy. This is so true for the current generation where we had the great bull market of 1982 to 1999. If folks of this generation, in general, were going to make a real killing in markets, that was the likely point they'd do it; few have managed so well since then and by the time the next one rolls around, our old-age risk taking propensity will likely see us on the sidelines as observers. I suppose we will see another such event that will take markets down to levels that for those who see it, will make the wealthy. Lindsay was one of a kind with a fabulous record, his famous prediction almost to the day and to the DJIA point where he said the low would be made months in advance, this when the world was ready to give up on stocks, established his bona fides. By the way, a video of that prediction floats around on the Internet and is worth a look. BR
Sorry, Brad, this doesn't add
I have not read all the
I have not read all the commentaries here but I want to add anyway that seeing George Linday's interview on Wall Street Week and his accurate preciction several months before the bottom of a vicious bear market in 1982 has given me a great appreciacion of his understanding of the markets (no small task) and his beauty as a person.
Alfred, how did you obtain
George Lindsay was my uncle.
Ha! That hadn't even occured
Thanks for the info, James.
Thanks for the info, James. I'm sure your uncle was a very decent and clever chap but equally, "The Other History" is bunk, with no more value than astrology. It's pretty clear from reading it that it's of a case of the facts being made to fit the theory rather than the other way round.
The whole field of so-called "technical analysis" is of dubious merit as well. Is there any solid evidence for its effectiveness? I'd be astonished if there were.
Alfred, Professor Andrew Lo
Ed, I am sure that markets
Ed, I am sure that markets can trend and not be random. Human beings are involved.
TA, however, is supposed to work without consideration of the human factor, in which case it ought to be doable by machines. Either it's about the numbers or it's a matter of judgement: which is it? The descriptions of TA that I see seem to try to have it both ways. Just like astrology, as I pointed out earlier.
And also like astrology, studies that show a possible mechanism by which something might work are not equivalent to a demonstration of it actually working in practice. That's what I would like to see: figures that show that TA, in general, performs better than a coin-toss. Sadly you can't say, after the fact, that person X was a good analyst on the basis of their results: if TA is just guesswork, then there will be some who get better results than others simply by pure luck.
If I come to you and say I can make myself invisible and then quote some research that shows invisibility is theoretically possible, would you be satisfied at that? I would hope not.
Furthermore, I am not persuaded by the suggestion that because Lindsay's work is not easy to understand, that somehow makes it more profound. I have lots of books here that are difficult reading. That does not mean they necessarily contain any form of truth.
Finally, the problem with The Other History is not that it's not accessible, it's that it's complete balderdash. A rule that can work both ways, and that has to be adjusted post hoc accordingly, is not a rule, it's a delusion.
Alfred, I've never heard of
"I've always thought of TA as
Ed, I find the term "sheeple"
Ed, I find the term "sheeple" highly insulting. It's a way of labelling those who disagree with you as lesser mortals, unable to see a profound truth, rather than fellow rational beings who happen to read the evidence differently.
I might look further into TA given time - I do prefer to understand before I dismiss - but The Other History is bunk, pure and simple. It is a selective reading of the past to support a flaky hypothesis. Nothing you can say about it will change my opinion, sorry.
I got the idea that TA was just about the numbers and not about behaviour because that's a major part of Lindsay's thesis in his book - that history can be seen as a series of patterns, reminiscent of biorhythms on a macro scale, and that you don't have to examine human motivation to predict the future. But he does a pretty rotten job of finding these patterns in the past, let alone the future.
For someone who calls the
Ed, some things are simply
Ed, some things are simply bunk. A supposed theory of history which contradicts itself and explains nothing, for instance.
My "thin skin" is not for myself, but for all the others so rudely dismissed by those who commonly use the term I objected to. I have been insulted far more vigorously than that on this site and elsewhere, and I couldn't give a shit about it. It's actually quite hard to get my goat, but I do enjoy a bit of verbal sparring, as long as it doesn't go on too long and get boring.
(Watch out, though, I don't play fair.)
I don't hate the book, I just think it is rather silly. It's not worthy of hate: it's simply not that important. But that doesn't mean I consider Lindsay himself less worthy of respect: plenty of excellent people get foolish ideas from time to time. Don't we all? I only concern myself with those that end up in print.
You can stop badgering me about selling the book, now. Take a hint.
After all the over-the-top
Ed you not only can't take a
Ed you not only can't take a hint, you seemingly can't read. I don't hate the book and I said so. I think it is wrong, bizarrely, absurdly wrong. And that's why it's here, on a website devoted to bizarre and absurd books.
I like the blurb on the
I have not seen this book,
Interesting Steve. You say
Interesting Steve. You say his forecasting ability was "really quite good": is there any empirical study that shows this?
(And whatever mystery there might be about his death, did he die rich? If his record was even modestly good, he should have been a billionaire, shouldn't he?)