Zen Theory
Mar 25, 2026 01:43
Technical analysis in speculative markets has long suffered two symmetrical misunderstandings: blind devotees treat it as a prophetic tool, while fierce detractors dismiss it as pseudoscience. Both positions share a fundamental misidentification of the core function of technical analysis. This essay demonstrates that the essential nature of technical indicators is that of a complete classification tool for market states. Using the moving average system as the primary example, it establishes a three-tier taxonomy of moving average interactions — skim, touch, and intertwine — derives their structural connections to trend continuation and trend reversal, and provides a systematic observational framework for the micro-level analytical work that follows.
I. The Core Function of Technical Analysis: Classification, Not Prophecy
The preceding essays established the fundamental epistemological framework for speculative market operations: preference does not participate in decision-making; all judgment rests on examination. In the concrete execution of examination, technical analysis constitutes a core tool within one of three independent screening systems. However, for technical analysis to fulfill its proper role within this framework, its essential function must first be accurately defined, because nearly all users of technical analysis harbor a fundamental misconception about what that function is.
The typical reasoning of the vast majority of technically-oriented market participants proceeds as follows: a certain technical indicator has issued a buy signal, therefore the market will rise, therefore one should buy. Embedded within this chain of reasoning is a fatal presupposition — the technical indicator is endowed with prophetic power, as though it were capable of communicating the future direction of price movement. It is precisely this presupposition that causes nearly all pure technicians to demonstrate astonishing precision in hindsight review while repeatedly falling into failure during actual operations. The precision of hindsight review is an illusion: once a price movement is complete, any technical indicator can be matched against the known outcome, thereby projecting a false appearance of predictive power. Yet in the real-time state where price movement is still unfolding, the same signal may lead to entirely different outcomes under different market conditions, and a prophetic interpretation possesses no capacity whatsoever to deal with this reality.
The true core function of technical analysis is classification. Any technical indicator is, in essence, a device that performs a complete classification of all possible market states and then labels them: under the perspective of this particular indicator, which states belong to the actionable category and which belong to the non-actionable category. Classification itself contains no prophecy about future direction. It merely states that when the market occupies a certain class of states, the probability distribution of historical outcomes favors certain subsequent evolutions over others, and therefore entry during this class of states carries positive expected value. Whether the market in this specific instance actually evolves in the high-probability direction is something classification does not and cannot guarantee.
Once this is understood, technical indicators return from pseudo-oracle to their true identity — classification tools. The value of a classification tool does not lie in every individual classification leading to a correct outcome, but in the cumulative effect of correct classifications producing a statistical edge over a large number of repeated applications. This aligns perfectly with the principle established earlier — “only engage what can be engaged.” The classification function of technical indicators is precisely the concrete technical implementation of examination: it informs the operator, through systematic procedure, whether the current market state belongs to the engageable classification.
II. The Internal Logic of Moving Average Systems as Evaluation Systems
Among the many families of technical indicators, the moving average system is the most fundamental, most intuitive, and simultaneously most practical evaluation system. An evaluation system, as the term is used here, refers to a framework capable of rendering judgments about the relative strength or weakness of a subject under a defined standard. The moving average system’s subject is price action, and its standard is the average price level over different time periods.
Consider the simplest case: when price stands above the 5-day moving average, the current price action is judged as strong under the evaluation standard of the 5-day average — meaning the aggregate market force over the most recent five trading days is directionally upward, and current price resides above this aggregate. However, at the same moment, price may reside below the 20-day moving average, which means that under the evaluation standard of the 20-day average, the current price action is judged as weak — although the most recent 5-day direction is upward, expanding the horizon to 20 days reveals that the aggregate market force remains directionally downward, and current price has not yet broken through this longer-period suppression.
Here arises a problem that is intractable for the prophetic understanding of technical analysis: the same price state produces opposite strength-weakness judgments under different evaluation standards. Which one should be followed? Under a prophetic interpretation, this contradiction is irresolvable, because two indicators have issued contradictory “prophecies,” leaving the operator paralyzed. But from the classification perspective, this does not constitute a contradiction at all: moving averages of different periods correspond to classifications at different operational scales. The strong judgment above the 5-day average applies to ultra-short-term classification with intraday or next-day operational horizons; the strength-weakness judgment of the 20-day average applies to short-to-medium-term classification with multi-week operational horizons. Each evaluation standard is independently valid at its corresponding operational scale, and no reconciliation between them is required.
This yields a critically important practical premise: the parameter selection for any moving average system must first be grounded in the operator’s actual capital size and operational time horizon. Divorced from this premise, all discussion of parameter superiority loses meaning. For ultra-short-term operators capable of executing intraday round-trip trades, short-period moving average strength on a 1-minute chart may suffice as an entry basis. For institutional operators managing large-scale capital, even daily-chart short-period moving average strength may lack sufficient operational value, because the entry and exit of large capital requires adequate market depth, and such depth can only be assured within trend confirmations at larger scales. Once the internal logic of the moving average system as an evaluation system is grasped, the specific selection of parameters can be flexibly adjusted according to individual circumstances — the underlying principle remains uniform.
III. The Three-Tier Taxonomy of Moving Average Interactions
The analytical value of the moving average system resides not only in the relationship between individual averages and price, but more importantly in the relationships among averages of different periods. Within a system composed of short-term, medium-term, and long-term moving averages, the relative positional relationships among the averages determine the overall structural state of the market. When the short-term average lies above the medium-term, and the medium-term lies above the long-term, the system is in bullish alignment — the basic structural signature of a systematic bull market. The reverse constitutes bearish alignment — the basic structural signature of a systematic bear market. The precondition for extracting profit is participation in the upward phases of bullish alignment. This is the most fundamental guidance the moving average system provides at the macro level.
Beneath this macro structure, the interactive behaviors among moving averages require finer examination. Treating the short-term average as the fast variable and the long-term average as the slow variable, every instance of approach, contact, or crossing between them constitutes an informational event regarding trend state. Based on the depth and manner of interaction, all moving average interactive behaviors can be subjected to a complete three-tier classification.
The first tier of interaction is termed the skim. Its manifestation is as follows: during its course, the short-term average briefly flattens or undergoes a minor retracement toward the long-term average, but resumes its original trend direction before making substantive contact. The appearance of a skim indicates that the prevailing trend has regained propulsive force after a brief attenuation of momentum, with the fundamental structure of the trend facing no substantive challenge. Skims typically occur during phases when the trend is running with exceptional strength — precisely because trend force is powerful, the short-term average’s reversion amplitude is extremely limited, pulled back by trend force before it can even reach the long-term average. However, because a skim also implies that trend momentum is in an extreme state, and no extreme state is sustainable over time, skims are frequently followed by adjustments or oscillations of greater magnitude.
The second tier of interaction is termed the touch. Its manifestation: the short-term average travels to the vicinity of the long-term average, the distance between them narrows to near-contact or brief contact, but the short-term average does not substantively break below (in bullish alignment) or above (in bearish alignment) the long-term average, and subsequently resumes its original trend direction. The touch is the most commonly observed form of moving average interaction during any sustained trend. In bearish alignment, the touch is virtually the standard termination pattern for rally phases — the short-term average rises toward the long-term average during a rally, contacts it, is repelled by bearish trend force, and the rally ends. In bullish alignment, the touch typically signals that an adjustment is nearing completion — the short-term average declines toward the long-term average during a pullback, contacts it, is pulled back upward by bullish trend force, and a new advancing phase commences. However, when encountering a touch in bullish alignment, one must maintain alertness to the possibility that the touch may deepen into the third tier of interaction; should it do so, the operator must transition to the response strategy appropriate for the third tier, guided by program rather than assumption.
The third tier of interaction is termed the intertwine. Its manifestation: the short-term average breaks below or above the long-term average and, following the break, does not quickly separate but instead repeatedly crosses and weaves around the long-term average, producing a complex entangled configuration. The appearance of an intertwine signifies that short-term trend force and long-term trend force have entered a zone of equilibrium, where the inertia of the prevailing trend and the emergence of a new directional impulse are engaged in intense opposition, and the moving average system loses its clear directional guidance within this zone. Intertwines typically arise in two scenarios: the first is a relatively deep medium-term correction within a larger-scale ongoing trend; the second is when the trend itself is gestating a major directional reversal.
IV. The Structural Link between Intertwining and Trend Reversal
Among the three tiers of the interaction taxonomy, the structural linkage between intertwining and trend reversal is the most operationally decisive cognition.
Virtually all major trend reversals are preceded by intertwining at the moving average level. The internal logic of this pattern is straightforward: a trend reversal means that market-dominant force switches from one direction to the opposite. Such a switch cannot occur instantaneously; it must pass through a process of repeated tug-of-war between bullish and bearish forces, and the projection of this process onto the moving average system is precisely the repeated crossing and entanglement of short-term, medium-term, and even long-term averages. The higher the tier of averages involved in the intertwine — that is, the longer the periods of the participating averages — the larger the scale of the reversal it portends. When short-term, medium-term, and long-term averages all converge within the same price zone and intertwine, it signals that the balance of forces across all temporal dimensions has entered a critical state, and the subsequent breakout typically carries enormous energy.
Following a prolonged bearish alignment, the emergence of a multi-tier intertwine warrants heightened attention. Such an intertwine indicates that the inertia of the long-term bearish trend is being depleted, and bullish forces have accumulated to the point where they can form an equilibrium standoff with bearish forces at the moving average level. Once the intertwine is complete, if the short-term average ultimately breaks upward and induces the medium-term average to follow, the conversion from bearish to bullish alignment is formally confirmed, and a new trending phase is imminent. An intertwine must be followed by a directional breakout — this is determined by the mathematical properties of the moving average system. The convergence of averages cannot persist indefinitely; price must ultimately choose a direction, and the moving average system will re-expand accordingly. The critical operational judgment is not whether a breakout will occur — it inevitably will — but in which direction, and what alignment structure the moving average system will form thereafter.
An important qualification must be introduced here. The above pattern, in which intertwining presages reversal, does not apply to the first intertwine that occurs at the very inception of a trend. The first intertwine at trend inception more commonly reflects the energy accumulation process before trend launch, rather than a directional contest within an established trend. Only intertwines that appear after a trend has already run for a considerable duration carry the reversal-warning significance described above. This qualification is essential for avoiding premature counter-trend judgments during the early stages of a trend.
Furthermore, the transition from intertwine to breakout follows two typical pathways. In the first pathway, after the intertwine is complete, the market first executes a sharp, brief terminal movement in the direction of the original trend — manifesting as a spike decline in bearish alignment or a spike rally in bullish alignment — creating a trap that causes the majority of participants to misjudge the direction, then rapidly reverses to complete the true trend reversal. In the second pathway, the intertwine itself repeats and extends, constructing a lateral consolidation range within a price zone, and the breakout from this range constitutes the confirmation signal of trend reversal. These two pathways differ markedly in form and rhythm but are, in essence, different modes of the same phenomenon: the directional breakout that necessarily follows intertwining.
V. From Classification to Operation: Moving Average Interaction as a Systematic Observational Framework
Returning to the classification essence of technical analysis, the three-tier taxonomy of moving average interactions — skim, touch, and intertwine — provides the operator with a structurally clear, boundary-defined systematic observational framework. At any point in time, the operator can classify the current state of moving average interaction according to this framework and adopt the corresponding operational strategy based on the classification result.
When the interaction state is a skim, trend continuation is the high-probability outcome, but contingency plans must be prepared for the larger-amplitude retracement that may follow. When the interaction state is a touch, in the trend-following direction, the completion of the touch is a high-probability signal for the resumption of the prevailing trend, and can serve as the basis for trend-following position additions or re-entries; but simultaneous monitoring must track whether the touch is deepening into an intertwine, and if so, the response strategy must shift accordingly. When the interaction state enters an intertwine, directional judgment is temporarily suspended and the operational strategy shifts to awaiting the directional breakout signal following the intertwine’s completion — during the intertwine itself, any operation based on directional prediction lacks sufficient procedural justification.
The value of this framework lies in its reduction of all possible interactive behaviors within the moving average system to a finite set of three types, with clearly defined operational logic for each. The operator need not prophesy future price direction; the operator need only identify, at each decision node, which classification the current state belongs to, and then execute according to the operational rules corresponding to that classification. This is precisely the manner in which technical analysis, functioning as a classification tool, produces its effect in actual operations.
The preceding essay established the principle of separating preference from examination at the macro level. The present essay has further established the taxonomy of moving average interactions at the technical level as a concrete instrument for executing examination. Subsequent analysis will continue to deepen, connecting the classification of moving average interactions with the hierarchical structure of price movements and the precise identification of buy and sell points, progressively constructing a complete analytical system from macroscopic cognition to microscopic operation. The principle running through the entire edifice remains unchanged: technical analysis is not prophecy but classification; operations are based not on preference but on systematic, objective examination.
Image source: Shutterstock
Source: https://blockchain.news/news/a-taxonomy-of-moving-average-interactions-the-essential-nature-and-application-of-technical-indicators-as-market-state-evaluation-systems
