|Originally published in the June 2010 Socionomist|
An Interview with Robert R. Prechter, Jr.:
In this issue, editor Mark Almand conducts an in-depth interview with Robert R. Prechter, Jr., founder of the Socionomics Institute and publisher of The Socionomist.
The Socionomist: You have a new publication about socionomics (this one, launched a year ago). John Casti, a well-known academic author, just released a well-received book about your social mood theory (Mood Matters). You recently presented your ideas at the University of Cambridge, and I understand the reception was very good among both students and faculty. You released a DVD of your presentation at the London School of Economics. Socionomics is getting coverage in the media. Two staff members have taught university classes. And the Institute has its first research fellow, Matt Lampert, pursuing an advanced degree at Cambridge. Socionomics seems to be gathering steam.
R.P.: I always feel that it’s taking too long for people to discover socionomics. But when I review the latest developments, I realize that progress is coming along nicely. So thanks for the reminder.
For the benefit of new readers, how about an “elevator speech” definition of socionomics?
Socionomics is the study of actions that result from changes in social mood.
What’s the hardest thing for most newcomers to grasp?
That social mood motivates social actions instead of the other way around.
Can you give me an example of how this causality works?
There are millions. Here is one. Most people think that recessions make businesspeople cautious. Socionomics says the opposite: Cautious businesspeople make recessions. So, the mood is the cause, and the event is the result.
Why is this insight important? I mean, what can it do for people?
Start with the above example. If you grasp that social mood is what moves the economy, and you can measure mood, then you can identify when and where recessions are most likely to occur. You can get out of the way.
And socionomics says that you can measure mood via the stock market?
Yes. For a variety of reasons, the stock market is an excellent meter of society’s mood. People can act on their moods immediately by buying or selling stock. But decisions they might make at the same time to expand or contract a business, or to draft a peace treaty or declare war, take time to effect. So there is a lag. This is why the stock market predicts the character of news, not the other way around.
You’ve told the story about how you got the initial insight about socionomics. What was that like?
I was drifting toward the idea in 1969, when I was 20 years old and wrote a college paper about song lyrics and social trends. Then I latched onto the Wave Principle in the early 1970s and started plotting financial prices in 1972. I taught myself technical analysis and the Wave Principle in 1973-1974 and became a pure technician early. This was useful, because from the beginning I never adopted the idea that stock prices responded to facts and news. All I could see were patterns, breadth and volume and how they corresponded to types of market action. These were all necessary precursors to the breakthrough. Then the idea that the stock market and popular culture were linked hit me in late 1975. I was looking at a wall chart of the stock market and thinking about tonal changes in Beatles records. That led me to thinking about popular music in general. Musical styles seemed to ebb and flow with stocks. That’s when I had the first moment of feeling that I had figured out something that no one else had observed before.
Were you instantly thrilled?
You know that introspective, suddenly alert feeling you get when a new idea comes into your head? That’s what I felt. But I didn’t have the whole picture yet. From there, things unfolded in waves.
What happened next?
I was mostly working at the time, for the Merrill Lynch Market Analysis Department. So I was busy with a career. I studied the Wave Principle, cycles and technical analysis in more depth and watched the stock market confound the fundamental analysts time and again. It became even more obvious to me that news lagged prices, not the other way around. So I became completely committed to the idea that the market moves independently of outside events. To this day I cannot understand technicians who talk about elections, the Fed, interest rates, economic news and social events. They have no predictive value as far as the stock market is concerned, at least not in the way most people read the news.
What’s the best way to read the news?
A socionomist reads the news completely differently from everyone else. For example, when we read that some think tank has predicted rising energy prices for the next decade, we figure that energy prices are probably near a top. When we read that economists are in agreement that a recession is in force, we see it as evidence that stock prices are near a bottom. And so on. As you can see, this is the opposite of the way most people read the news. When news stories cluster or sound extreme, they can have predictive value, in the opposite direction.
Why is that?
Because news lags mood trends. By the time events have reflected a positive or negative mood trend fully, that trend is about to reverse.
When did you start writing about socionomics?
In 1979, I went independent and started a publishing company. In December that year I wrote my first socionomic declaration. It’s at the start of Pioneering Studies. In 1984 I wrote another one. Then in 1985, I wrote a report titled “Popular Culture and the Stock Market,” which was boiled down for a Barron’s article. That sort of kicked things off. Until then, I was the only one having these thoughts. Then a small segment of the public got interested.
Did you call it socionomics then?
I wrote that name on a file folder and put it away for the day when I wrote my first book about it. I kept it to myself until 1999, when I finally wrote The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics.
Were you a pure socionomist from the start?
No. Socionomics is deeply counter-intuitive. I had to go through a long process of weeding out misconceptions from my mind that had taken root there long ago. An early example was the idea that interest rates buffet the stock market. There are people who make a living on this idea. Economists are sure it’s true. My colleagues were convinced of it. It makes sense. It’s also quite wrong. If someone told you the course of interest rates in advance, you couldn’t predict stock prices. The stock market moves on waves of social mood. If you know that, you know more than the person who knows where interest rates are going. And, of course, no one knows where interest rates are going. Except that sometimes socionomists do know, because we study the history of waves and their attending social attributes.
What was the next big insight?
By 1999, I had become an almost complete purist. I was able to turn every exogenous-cause argument on its head: prove it was wrong, and then show that socionomic causality successfully explains the very same data. But I still had this residual belief, carried from the past, that the Federal Reserve had the power to control the money supply and thereby move markets around. One day I realized that this idea, if it were true, challenged my whole model. I posed the same question I always did: When I reverse the order of causality, how does it re-form the question? So instead of asking how the Fed controls the markets, I asked how the mood behind the market controls the Fed. I discovered that people create central banks at certain times in the wave structure. I plotted interest rate data and realized that the Fed just follows the T-bill rate, which is set by the market. I studied the Fed’s historical actions and realized that the Fed does not act; it reacts. The whole Wizard of Oz image went up in smoke. That was my last bout with exogenous causality.
Was it useful?
Oh, yes. This specific exercise proved very useful, because it led me to an understanding of credit and the Fed that allowed me to write a unique book predicting deflation. Everyone else I had read or heard—Keynesians, Monetarists, Austrians, you name it—fervently believed that deflation is utterly impossible in a fiat money system. They still do. They are all stuck in the exogenous-cause paradigm, a corollary of which is that politicians and central bankers can direct the economy. But it’s the other way around. The economy pushes them around. And social mood pushes the economy around. So if you know the trend of social mood, you can predict what the Fed will do.
I am sure that along the way, you had several additional major breakthroughs. What were the key one or two?
Right. Well, I had to tie all my ideas together theoretically. For one thing, I realized that the causality attending economics and finance are completely different. This is also an idea that, as far as I can tell, no one had proposed before. I wrote about it with Wayne Parker in a paper for the Journal of Behavioral Finance in 2007.
Realizing that the Elliott wave model described the structure of waves of social mood—not just financial pricing—was another insight. I also figured out that most financial thinking is rationalization, not reasoning. One evening in 2004, I developed a diagram that shows how all the related ideas fit together. [Ed: See Figure 1.]
Has anyone ever shared an “aha moment” of their own regarding socionomics with you?
A number of people have come up with valuable insights about socionomics.
Wayne Parker proposed a metatheoretical context for the theory, which was very important. Also, Wayne and I collaborated to come up with the distinction between mood and emotions. Alan Hall and I figured out that the center of wave 3 is the mood-direction delineator, an idea that we wrote up for The Socionomist. Other people have done some excellent supportive studies. Pete Kendall showed how the sport of basketball has grown and contracted in concert with social mood, and he has linked the outbreak of fighting in the Middle East with worldwide social mood peaks.
Working from a suggestion from Pete Kendall, Professors John Nofsinger and Kenneth Kim demonstrated a strong relationship between stock market trends and the timing of when the government adds and removes regulations on investing. Mark Galasiewski connected stock market trends to the popularity of automobile colors; DuPont included it in its annual Automotive Color Popularity Report, and Radar magazine wrote it up. And Brian Whitmer used socionomics to predict the Greek debt crisis and a coming breakup of the European Union. There must be three dozen such contributions.
When Brian published his report, the media said nothing. There was no interest. Then a few months later when the Greek debt crisis occurred, it was a bit late to take action. This kind of thing happens regularly, doesn’t it?
Socionomic insights are their most useful precisely when most people are least inclined to pay attention to them. It is unfortunate and ironic, but socionomic theory explains why it is also axiomatic.
You also mentioned mood versus emotions. What is the difference?
Emotions are exogenously referred, consciously experienced feelings, regulated by a combination of mood, conditions and events. Mood is an endogenously regulated, unconsciously experienced mental state, regulated by Elliott waves.
Mood predisposes people toward certain emotions. But before a person can experience an emotion, he must have a referent. People in a positive mood trend might credit a political leader or a musical group for their happy feelings. People in a negative mood trend might blame a political leader or their spouses for their unhappy feelings. So unconscious moods can produce conscious emotions via an external referent, but the root cause—mood—goes unrecognized.
Which brings me to another point. I recently realized something very exciting about this area: People have no memory for their shared moods. They do remember emotions, however, which are expressed with reference to exogenous circumstances.
Does a specific mood produce more of a certain type of emotion? For example, during a bear mood, do people in general feel more fearful and angry?
Yes. I published a list of emotional expressions of negative and positive social mood. It’s in Chapter 14 of The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior.
Back to your earlier point: You said people cannot remember their moods. Is that because mood is unconscious?
Exactly. People will remember a powerful emotion their whole lives. For example, if you ask them how they felt when their child was born or when a beloved pet died, often they can tell you. But if you ask them how they felt at the last market top, they have forgotten it already, and they think that any fool should have seen it was a terrible time to own stocks! Clearly the brain has no storage mechanism for social mood. It exists only for the moment. It fluctuates in a fractal pattern. People sense it unconsciously, so they don’t recognize it, which is why they don’t remember it.
And yet they act on their mood all the time.
Yes, without realizing it.
If I understand the concept of a “fractal” properly, at the same exact instant mood will almost always be both bearish and bullish at various degrees of trend. This is hard for most people to understand.
You are so right. Theorists who talk about financial or social tipping points think the market or society is going in one trend and then reaches some point at which it “tips” in the other direction, as if it were a tree leaning over and finally falling due to one last wind gust. But the market is a fractal. It is changing direction every split second. Is every one of those changes a tipping point? People who reason from mechanics take some major trend change as an example of the point that “tipped.” But doing so is selective, because at smaller degrees the market had multiple other trend changes. And there are larger ones as well. Once you see it graphically, it’s pretty clear. The market and the social mood behind it move according to the Wave Principle. It’s not mechanics.
Are you saying that social mood is completely endogenous? That nothing, no matter how wonderful or calamitous, has any effect on it at all?
We have investigated every exogenous-cause argument we have heard, and we have tested every socionomic cause-and-result claim that we can think of. Usually they are two sides of a coin, and the established theory fails, and ours works. Now, we have yet to demonstrate all our conclusions with rigorous statistics. We have a paper in the works right now about political forecasting. But I will also say that we have found no papers that prove exogenous causality in the stock market. The theory is simply assumed, as if it were a law of physics. And that’s exactly what it is, which is why it doesn’t apply to social behavior. I would welcome any challenge to socionomics that someone thinks we may have overlooked.
If I accept, as you say, that mood drives events, I then have to ask this: What drives mood?
Social mood arises when humans interact socially. It is not passed from one person to another as in contagion. It is not imparted by leaders. It is not imposed by authorities. If anything “drives” the emergence of social mood, it is the herding impulse. At least the process seems closely related to the herding impulse.
How exactly do herding impulses interact in a group setting?
We don’t know. Maybe someone well-versed in fMRI studies can figure it out. (Ed: fMRIs, short for functional MRIs, are imaging tests that show which parts of the brain “light up” when it performs a function.)
What role do Elliott waves play?
Elliott waves describe the fluctuations of social mood, just as branching rules describe the pattern of trees. Elliott waves probably constrain social mood fluctuations, just as branching rules constrain branching systems.
Meaning that social mood does not move outside the form of an Elliott wave?
You have written about Fibonacci relationships, golden spirals and so on in the natural world and noted that those same growth principles turn up in human behavior. Do you have a theory connecting physical manifestations in nature and social manifestations in groups?
Many living systems display Fibonacci relationships. So do Elliott waves, which describe a living system.
How are fractals involved?
A special type of fractal is found in living beings and systems. I call it a robust fractal.
Most fractals in non-living nature are indefinite, or random, fractals, and a few are self-identical fractals. Clouds and seacoasts are indefinite fractals. Heated silicone oil produces a self-identical fractal of stacked hexagonal patterns.
Robust fractals do have a specific pattern, but they do not repeat it exactly; there are quantitative differences; a robust fractal is self-similar but not self-identical. Trees, circulatory systems and pulmonary systems are all robust fractals. The small branches look a lot like the larger ones but not exactly like them. That’s how component waves look relative to encompassing waves.
Are you also saying that there absolutely is never a case in which an event drives the markets?
Not quite. Transitory emotional reactions move prices occasionally for a few seconds or minutes. The market quickly adjusts to where it would have been without the disturbance. Larger trends are completely independent of exogenous cause.
Now recall my observation that people remember their emotions. This is a big reason why people think that news moves markets. They remember the big up opening on news, or the sharp one-minute reaction. But they can not consciously register the unconscious mood that guided the vast bulk of the market’s moves. They do not sense the causality, so they don’t remember it.
Where do you see the science heading next?
We need to test all our ideas rigorously. We are doing so little by little. The Socionomics Foundation offers grants to interested academics.
What is your biggest dream for socionomics?
I would like to see departments of socionomics in universities. The demand is growing, and some universities now include socionomics in certain classes. So it is beginning to happen.
Will you see it in your lifetime?
Depends on how long I live.
Socionomist is a monthly online magazine designed to help
readers see and capitalize on the waves of social mood that contantly occur
throughout the world. It is published by the Socionomics
Institute, Robert R. Prechter, president; Matt Lampert, editor-in-chief;
Alyssa Hayden, editor; Alan Hall and Chuck Thompson, staff writers; Dave Allman
and Pete Kendall, editorial direction; Chuck Thompson, production; Ben Hall,
For subscription matters, contact Customer Care: Call 770-536-0309 (internationally) or 800-336-1618 (within the U.S.). Or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
We are always interested in guest submissions. Please email manuscripts and proposals to Chuck Thompson via email@example.com. Mailing address: P.O. Box 1618, Gainesville, Georgia, 30503, U.S.A. Phone 770-536-0309. Please consult the submission guidelines located at http://www.socionomics.net/PDF/Socionomist_Submission_Guidelines.pdf.
For our latest offerings: Visit our website, www.socionomics.net, listing BOOKS, DVDs and more.
Correspondence is welcome, but volume of mail often precludes a reply. Whether it is a general inquiry, socionomics commentary or a research idea, you can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Most economists, historians and sociologists
presume that events determine society’s mood. But socionomics hypothesizes
the opposite: that social mood regulates the character of social events. The
events of history—such as investment booms and busts, political events,
macroeconomic trends and even peace and war—are the products of a naturally
occurring pattern of social-mood fluctuation. Such events, therefore, are not
randomly distributed, as is commonly believed, but are in fact probabilistically
predictable. Socionomics also posits that the stock market is the best available
meter of a society’s aggregate mood, that news is irrelevant to social
mood, and that financial and economic decision-making are fundamentally different
in that financial decisions are motivated by the herding impulse while economic
choices are guided by supply and demand. For more information about socionomic
theory, see (1) the text, The
Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior © 1999, by Robert Prechter;
(2) the introductory documentary History's
Hidden Engine; (3) the video Toward
a New Science of Social Prediction, Prechter’s 2004 speech before
the London School of Economics in which he presents evidence to support his
socionomic hypothesis; and (4) the Socionomics Institute’s website, www.socionomics.net.
At no time will the Socionomics Institute make specific recommendations about
a course of action for any specific person, and at no time may a reader, caller
or viewer be justified in inferring that any such advice is intended.
All contents copyright © 2019 Socionomics Institute. All rights reserved. Feel free to quote, cite or review, giving full credit. Typos and other such errors may be corrected after initial posting.