Because you’re taking something that is definitely outside the realm of financial markets and trying to apply it to the financial markets.
It’s exactly as illogical as applying something like the progression of Tennis Scores, which are definitely outside the realm of financial markets, (0 (love), 15, 30, 40) and trying to apply that to the financial markets.
Or taking a progression of prime numbers, which are definitely outside the realm of financial markets, and trying to apply that to the financial markets.
Or taking [anything] that is outside the realm of the financial markets and trying to apply it to the financial markets.
Is the fibonacci sequence a “real thing?” Yes, absolutely. That wiki article explains it.
But is completely outside the realm of trading and that is why it makes as much sense to apply it to trading as it does to apply Tennis scores or prime numbers or anything else.
I’m not sure how else I can explain it.
I mean think about it. You’re saying that a ratio of numbers (that may or may not even be found in nature) are somehow applicable to psychology. That’s a colossal stretch.
Ratio of things in nature != psychology. That’s as absurd as saying the number of pellets in a bag of dog food can predict basketball scores.