Learning Web series for Traders

Price Action Trading - Part 1

Small thread /Video

Video link - https://t.co/7V2pz0aCdx

Traders support by like & retweet to benefit all

@Mitesh_Engr @ITRADE191 @ProdigalTrader @nakulvibhor @RajarshitaS @Stockstudy8 @vivbajaj @Prakashplutus https://t.co/ZKBMSEZkTl

1/4 Engulfing Candle along with the trend. In this case bullish trend. Scroll down and check the example. Also in a video format ( Video link - https://t.co/7V2pz0aCdx )
Higher High & Higher low is common in bull market but to understand the traders strength need to read the auction in the consolidated sideways range. So I have explained a simple engulfing concept. Scroll down
3/4
Video link - https://t.co/7V2pz0aCdx

More from Learn to Trade

More from All

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x