Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad poor Dad

[darkrose50]

Wealth seeker: "Hey, do you have any advice on how to invest money?"
Wealthy teacher: "Sure, how much money do you have?"
Wealth seeker: "I live paycheck to paycheck."
Wealthy teacher: "Well, literally everything i know requires a healthy amount of start-up capital at the absolute least. Come back when you have a few hundred thousand and we can start from there, OK?"

Helpful!

I think that folks would be able to open up a S&P 500 account with little to no money. But yes folks would need some money to invest.

I'm gonna ask for a source here. To the best of my knowledge, the US military neither performs nor even accepts IQ tests. I also question where any schools do this, if if so, then how prevalent it is.

It was simply called the IQ test at one time.

"All military recruits must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to qualify for enlistment. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test (correlation = 0.8)." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...lowest-our-low

-----

I really hate it when the reporter says something like "you would think <x>" . . . no, no I would not.

"Or take a study about tank gunners. You might not think a standardized intelligence test would have much effect on the ability to shoot straight."

Holy cow! It must be crazy hard to fire from a moving target and be able to hit a moving target. Also not a straight line.

[Willie the Duck]

A good place to go and look for knowledge on the subject due to proximity and probability of multi-generational experience. A source that I would not write-off. A source that I have used personally.

Yes, and that's what this conversation telegraphs as -- an attempt to refute the comments made by a self-help guru that specifically target a certain profession* as not a good source of advice pertinent to a specific goal. And as that with, I feel safe in saying, no one has a problem.
*one that (beyond loving your spouse) you personally have hitched your wagon to and have greatly profited from.

Multigenerational wealth is a feedback loop. It is both a cause and an effect. The money itself is damned useful to buy one towards success (not a sure thing, but damned useful . . . like crazy damned useful). The skills on how to manage money, and invest money are damned useful as well. So having a parent with money helps, and having a parent teach good money and investment skills also helps.

Money [cause] = helpful [effect]

Learning about making money [cause] = making money [effect] = money [cause] = helpful [effect]

Heck you could switch cause/effect, or put an and/or in there.

I'm not going to re-argue or relitigate the entire first page of this thread. You posited that you are having trouble explaining yourself and I agree it was a major issue. Cause and effect was just an example. Correlation and causation was another. Whether you recognized the other extenuating factors involved was another (now, later, you have clarified that you recognize another thing coming from wealth brings is the potential for initial investment capital). It was not clear what you knew or not.

Yeah he wrote the book some 20-years ago, and “the man” is keeping you poor by having teachers teach you things like jobs are not bad. Seriously he says that those with jobs are the parasites, and those with money, not paying taxes, are the true heroes.

And again, another point of huh?-ism, since I have no idea why you wrote this in response to the block of text you quoted, as they are unrelated. My point was regarding snowblizz's apparent point that investing and/or capitalism are poo-pooed in the US, which is not my experience. It had nothing to do with Kiyosaki's book.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm gonna ask for a source here. To the best of my knowledge, the US military neither performs nor even accepts IQ tests. I also question where any schools do this, if if so, then how prevalent it is.

Even if someone does use it, that doesn't mean that IQ is in any way a measure of intelligence. Won't go into the reasons why because politics, but yeah, I don't see how an appeal to such authority is in any way supposed to support the notion that IQ correlates with anything, from actual intelligence to money management abilities.

Grey Wolf

[halfeye]

The point here, in this thread, originally was that teachers do not teach you how to be poor.

Here, you'd be right about that. They also don't teach you how to search for a job, or how to claim benefits if you don't have one. That's been true under all political parties. It is a little strange.

[darkrose50]

Even if someone does use it, that doesn't mean that IQ is in any way a measure of intelligence. Won't go into the reasons why because politics, but yeah, I don't see how an appeal to such authority is in any way supposed to support the notion that IQ correlates with anything, from actual intelligence to money management abilities.

Grey Wolf

It is used in education to test for individuals with a Intellectual Disability.

"IQ (intelligence quotient) is measured by an IQ test. The average IQ is 100, with the majority of people scoring between 85 and 115. A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75." https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby...-retardation#1

IQ is a *a* way to measure *a* type of intelligence. Now there are other ways to test for other types of intelligence. In the research papers they often seem to just flat out say intelligence, and not IQ, so that is interesting, and likely to fall out of favor. These things change. We get new professors, they get in charge, and they change things. We get new people, new studies, and such. For a time IQ did in fact mean intelligence. Now I do not think that IQ is intelligence, but is definitely a measure of a type of intelligence.

So is IQ useful? I would say it was if you were testing for problem solving skills, especially expedient problem solving skills. There are different types of intelligence, and it would not be useful for all areas.

For example it is easier for me to re-figure out how to program the clock, then it is to memorize how to program the clock. My sister-in-law finds it easier to memorize how to program the clock. We both get the clock programmed. Neither has a superior result. An IQ test would not be helpful in figuring out who is better at programming the clock.

[halfeye]

Holy cow! It must be crazy hard to fire from a moving target and be able to hit a moving target. Also not a straight line.

Tank gunners didn't fire while moving (if they needed to hit a target) up until the end of WW2 or later.

[Keltest]

It is used in education to test for individuals with a Intellectual Disability.

"IQ (intelligence quotient) is measured by an IQ test. The average IQ is 100, with the majority of people scoring between 85 and 115. A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75." https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby...-retardation#1

IQ is a *a* way to measure *a* type of intelligence. Now there are other ways to test for other types of intelligence. In the research papers they often seem to just flat out say intelligence, and not IQ, so that is interesting, and likely to fall out of favor. These things change. We get new professors, they get in charge, and they change things. We get new people, new studies, and such. For a time IQ did in fact mean intelligence. Now I do not think that IQ is intelligence, but is definitely a measure of a type of intelligence.

So is IQ useful? I would say it was if you were testing for problem solving skills, especially expedient problem solving skills. There are different types of intelligence, and it would not be useful for all areas.

For example it is easier for me to re-figure out how to program the clock, then it is to memorize how to program the clock. My sister-in-law finds it easier to memorize how to program the clock. We both get the clock programmed. Neither has a superior result. An IQ test would not be helpful in figuring out who is better at programming the clock.

Used by who? I'm not aware of any schools that actually use such a method, or any doctors.

[Peelee]

"All military recruits must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to qualify for enlistment. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test (correlation = 0.8)." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...lowest-our-low

Oh, hey, the "it's essentially an IQ test" is linked. Let's follow that!

There is little evidence showing the relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and g (general intelligence). This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence. In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g. We provide equations for converting SAT scores to estimated IQs; such conversion could be useful for estimating premorbid IQ or conducting individual difference research with college students

So it's essentially an IQ test in the sense that the test somewhat correlates to SAT scores, which can be vaguely converted to estimated IQs, and in the end isn't even used for that but used to see where in the military the test taker should be.

Or, in simpler terms, "not an IQ test."

[Razade]

Oh, hey, the "it's essentially an IQ test" is linked. Let's follow that!


So it's essentially an IQ test in the sense that the test somewhat correlates to SAT scores, which can be vaguely converted to estimated IQs, and in the end isn't even used for that but used to see where in the military the test taker should be.

Or, in simpler terms, "not an IQ test."

Note that the study that Darkrose linked to to back up the claim about job stratification and IQ said that the two were not correlated as well.

[halfeye]

Or, in simpler terms, "not an IQ test."

Binet messed up the original IQ test because he tested random members of the public. There were a lot of mentally subnormal people in institutions who he didn't test, so the average real IQ on his test was 90, when it was supposed to be 100. I don't know for sure that that's been corrected yet, though it probably has, but then if so the changed test isn't the standard IQ test.

[darkrose50]

When trying to figure out things I would look at correlation and causation. I would not rule out something that others assume is a correlation, or a paradox.

There are lots of reasons why teachers (as a whole, as a group, not that teacher sitting over there in the corner) tend to be wealthy.
* One of them is inheriting a wad of cash, and this would be a correlation (when seeking investment advice).
* One of them is inheriting cultural capital on what to do with a wad of cash and this would be causation (when seeking investment advice).

The correlations and the causations all get along just fine.

Binet messed up the original IQ test because he tested random members of the public. There were a lot of mentally subnormal people in institutions who he didn't test, so the average real IQ on his test was 90, when it was supposed to be 100. I don't know for sure that that's been corrected yet, though it probably has, but then if so the changed test isn't the standard IQ test.

IQ tests are wonky. They test your population, and slap you into that group. So if you take an IQ test after some-sort of biological weapon stupefied folks, but you were on vacation abroad, then when you came back you just might have the highest IQ in your group.

I also think that we also teach how to be better at IQ. If IQ is intelligence, then lets teach IQ! I bet this this totally happened and is totally happening now.

Like that guy from Idiocracy that went from having the average IQ, to the smartest man alive. He would have had 100 IQ before getting frozen, and might end up having something nuts like a 300 IQ after being thawed out. Not because he got any better at IQ, but because everyone else got worse at IQ.

Or, in simpler terms, "not an IQ test."

Back in the day the military took the IQ test and ran with it. Score low, you can't serve, and they sent you packing. Score high they put you into officer training. They now use something else, something more, something new, but based it largely on the IQ test.

[Kung-Fu Master] Is the snowball that became an avalanche no longer a snowball? [/Kung-Fu Master]

[Peelee]

Back in the day the military took the IQ test and ran with it. Score low, you can't serve, and they sent you packing. Score high they put you into officer training. They now use something else, something more, something new, but based it largely on the IQ test.

Back in the day the military outfitted their arctic survival units with top-of-the-line winter gear, sent them into frigid conditions, and measured where most of the heat was lost, which turned out to be the top of the head. Spoiler alert, the units were not issued hats.

"This group did it way back when" is a pretty poor argument when you're trying to argue the merits of a thing. The military did it way back when? Cool. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.

ETA: And it's somehow an even worse argument if it's untrue, as Razade claims below.

[Razade]

The United States Military has never conducted a formal IQ test on recruits. Ever. In the history of our country. The ASVAB is not a formal IQ test and has been the test all branches of the Armed Services have conducted since 1976. The U.S military has a standard on the ASVAB test that they require all members of the Armed Forces to meet. This is an 85. That 85 is not an 85IQ because it is not an IQ test.

[darkrose50]

Back in the day the military outfitted their arctic survival units with top-of-the-line winter gear, sent them into frigid conditions, and measured where most of the heat was lost, which turned out to be the top of the head. Spoiler alert, the units were not issued hats.

The hat story I find to be ironic and interesting. The Germans are known for their math and science skills. Smart bunch those mathematicians and scientists. The Germans sent out their army without hats, and they starved to death due to being cold. The Russians were running around without helmets, but had those Russian hats that keep you warm. More body heat, and less starving to death.

"This group did it way back when" is a pretty poor argument when you're trying to argue the merits of a thing. The military did it way back when? Cool. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.

I think that it worked, but the newer one likely works better. Basically they had all these guys to sort out. They sorted out the ones with cognitive difficulties, and put the ones that scored high in the test into officer training. Now I am sure some that scored high, and went to officer training did not make it. I am also sure there were other ways to get into officer training, like being a doctor or something. But it was likely a good idea to sort out those with cognitive difficulties and keep them from going to war.

The United States Military has never conducted a formal IQ test on recruits. Ever. In the history of our country. The ASVAB is not a formal IQ test and has been the test all branches of the Armed Services have conducted since 1976. The U.S military has a standard on the ASVAB test that they require all members of the Armed Forces to meet. This is an 85. That 85 is not an 85IQ because it is not an IQ test.

For WWI they took the IQ test and filed off the serial number, and gave it a new name. It was essentially an IQ test.

[Peelee]

The hat story I find to be ironic and interesting. The Germans are known for their math and science skills. Smart bunch those mathematicians and scientists. The Germans sent out their army without hats, and they starved to death due to being cold. The Russians were running around without helmets, but had those Russian hats that keep you warm. More body heat, and less starving to death.



I think that it worked, but the newer one likely works better. Basically they had all these guys to sort out. They sorted out the ones with cognitive difficulties, and put the ones that scored high in the test into officer training. Now I am sure some that scored high, and went to officer training did not make it. But it was likely a good idea to sort out those with cognitive difficulties and keep them from going to war.

Your first paragraph contradicts your second. If they tested for IQ, they would be testing for general intelligence. You don't want general intelligence in miitary command, you want strategic and tactical intelligence. Throwing an IQ test at everyone and tossing the ones that score higher in command would turn out very poorly, as you yourself point out in the first paragraph!

And that's assuming both that IQ tests are reliable and that the military ever used them to begin with.

[darkrose50]

Your first paragraph contradicts your second. If they tested for IQ, they would be testing for general intelligence. You don't want general intelligence in miitary command, you want strategic and tactical intelligence. Throwing an IQ test at everyone and tossing the ones that score higher in command would turn out very poorly, as you yourself point out in the first paragraph!

It is what they did (this and officer school). What would you do if you gave a test. Would you be curious about the ones that scored high? You need officers. Would you think to pull them from the high scores in this test, an Army test, to fill those slots? It would be very tempting to fill those slots and give a reason backed up by some army doctors/scientists. The army doctors/scientists likely did not protest, and I bet thought it was a grand idea.

And that's assuming both that IQ tests are reliable and that the military ever used them to begin with.

Oh they used the IQ test. In WWI they basically took the IQ test and filled off the serial numbers.

[Razade]

For WWI they took the IQ test and filed off the serial number, and gave it a new name. It was essentially an IQ test.

The AGCT was not an IQ test. Nor were the Alpha or Beta test. They both covered more and broader things than an IQ test and their parameters did not fit IQ testing qualifications at the time.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Which is probably good, since apparently reading the right handful of books will boost your IQ score. Since you'll know the stories they're using for the associations part of the test. Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet alone were good for like 8 points.

Guess who has the leisure time to read Elizabethan drama?

IQ 'tests' are just another excuse to put the rich on top.

[darkrose50]

The AGCT was not an IQ test. Nor were the Alpha or Beta test. They both covered more and broader things than an IQ test and their parameters did not fit IQ testing qualifications at the time.

Searching the internet I see that many think both ways. The IQ test was definitely the major predominant source marital. I am sure that you agree that they did not create the AGCT out of whole cloth, and borrowed heavily from the IQ test.

It would be interesting to see the correlation between the IQ test and the WWI AGCT. The modern one has like a 0.8 correlation. I bet a large sum of buttons that the WWI I has a way higher correlation, and this correlation has gone down with time.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Given the number of officers who weren't worth a tin of boot polish in the trenches, getting away from IQ tests would be an improvement.

[darkrose50]

Which is probably good, since apparently reading the right handful of books will boost your IQ score. Since you'll know the stories they're using for the associations part of the test. Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet alone were good for like 8 points.

Guess who has the leisure time to read Elizabethan drama?

IQ 'tests' are just another excuse to put the rich on top.

Tests often drive me nuts. I have to take a lot of tests to keep my insurance license. Some of the questions are so very poorly worded, that it would make your head spin.

I had one question ask "Your customer has two children: one is good with money and is successful, and the other is more artsy and is not good with money. What do you advise?" The "correct" answer was to give all the money to the successful one, and to give the more artsy one the family photos. I bet because of insurance profits, or something nuts that made its way into a test about morals. Now I would do the opposite and give the money to my hippy kid. There was not an answer to have the kid that was good with money help the kid that was not good with money (this is what I would really do).

[AMFV]

The United States Military has never conducted a formal IQ test on recruits. Ever. In the history of our country. The ASVAB is not a formal IQ test and has been the test all branches of the Armed Services have conducted since 1976. The U.S military has a standard on the ASVAB test that they require all members of the Armed Forces to meet. This is an 85. That 85 is not an 85IQ because it is not an IQ test.

The ASVAB AFQT minimum requirement is a 32 which can be waived to around a 26.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which is probably good, since apparently reading the right handful of books will boost your IQ score. Since you'll know the stories they're using for the associations part of the test. Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet alone were good for like 8 points.

Guess who has the leisure time to read Elizabethan drama?

I didn't know this, but I can believe, since it does fit with my own impression of those tests:

From my own experience, they are only good at measuring one thing: how well you do at thinking like the guy that designed them. And since said guy thinks himself intelligent, he brands you also intelligent if you think like him, on a sliding scale of how fast you are at thinking like him.

I'm sure that to the guy who designed it, the desire, training and time to read Shakespeare "felt" like an intelligence marker. That it is not is another stone in the grave of such tests.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

Regarding teachers as a general category, Kiyosaki isn't that wrong - their role isn't to give financial advice to their pupils.

Instead of going to "random teachers (of whom 1/6 are millionaires)" or "random white people (of whom 1/7 are millionaires)", a better advice would be to go to the richest person you know in your extended circles (friends and family).

Here's an amusing fact - for the past 5+ years I have been that person for my friends and family, and one ex-gf of mine (we met in university, and unlike me she continued all the way to getting her PhD) recently asked me for advice on what to do with all that money piling up in her bank account now that she's got a high-paying university job and has been used to the grad school / postdoctoral lifestyle for a very long time now.

Interesting case of the real world functioning the opposite way to the OP's premises... normally, I should ask my ex-gf (a physicist with a PhD) for investment advice, not the other way around.

I'd even go as far as to say people like her ("sheltered academics") might be a worse source of advice than, say, "the average baby boomer". (Which isn't that good a source to begin with.)

Also, Willie the Duck, I forgot to answer you, but it's been a very long time since I read "Rich Dad Poor Dad", and while I recall it being optimistic as is standard for such guru-books ("it's easy, just borrow to anyone who'll lend you, buy real estate and wait until time passes, eventually you'll wake up one morning and realize you're now rich") there might be a few bits of decent advice in it.

[darkrose50]

Regarding teachers as a general category, Kiyosaki isn't that wrong - their role isn't to give financial advice to their pupils.

Instead of going to "random teachers (of whom 1/6 are millionaires)" or "random white people (of whom 1/7 are millionaires)", a better advice would be to go to the richest person you know in your extended circles (friends and family).

Here's an amusing fact - for the past 5+ years I have been that person for my friends and family, and one ex-gf of mine (we met in university, and unlike me she continued all the way to getting her PhD) recently asked me for advice on what to do with all that money piling up in her bank account now that she's got a high-paying university job and has been used to the grad school / postdoctoral lifestyle for a very long time now.

Interesting case of the real world functioning the opposite way to the OP's premises... normally, I should ask my ex-gf (a physicist with a PhD) for investment advice, not the other way around.

This is not even close to my original premise. My original premise is that they were a good source of information based on proximity and probability of being from the upper-middle-class and the upper-class (in order to search for cultural capital on investing). In no way shape or form did I ever say that they were the best choice, the only choice, or the preferred choice. Because that would be stupid.

My original premise was that Kiyosaki was wrong. That one should not under any circumstances rule teachers (as a group) out as a source for learning about wealth or investing. Because that would be stupid. A person is not just their occupation. I do a lot around the office that is not even remotely close to my job title. I do things outside of my job description at work. I do this because I am good at it, and they let me because it earns profit. It is nice to be listened to. No one would go to a guy that sells health insurance and ask for financial advice. I don’t do too shabby with investing. I actually quite shock myself.

I'd even go as far as to say people like her ("sheltered academics") might be a worse source of advice than, say, "the average baby boomer". (Which isn't that good a source to begin with.)

Also, Willie the Duck, I forgot to answer you, but it's been a very long time since I read "Rich Dad Poor Dad", and while I recall it being optimistic as is standard for such guru-books ("it's easy, just borrow to anyone who'll lend you, buy real estate and wait until time passes, eventually you'll wake up one morning and realize you're now rich") there might be a few bits of decent advice in it.

I stand by the premise that searching for multigenerational investment cultural capital among the upper-middle-class and the upper-class is wise.

[Peelee]

This is not even close to my original premise. My original premise is that they were a good source of information based on proximity and probability of being from the upper-middle-class and the upper-class (in order to search for cultural capital on investing)

The problem here is the vast majority of teachers that are accessible based on proximity are going to be grade-school teachers, who require the least amount of education to teach their classes, and the education they get is less geared towards their topics and more geared towards childhood development. So even going by the "the more educated are more likely to be good with money" argument you put forth (which I strenuously disagree with, but putting that aside for the moment), they are the lowest ones on the totem pole and, by your own arguments, thus the farthest ones you would want to seek such advice from.

[lio45]

This is not even close to my original premise. My original premise is that they were a good source of information based on proximity and probability. In no way shape or form did I ever say that they were the best choice, the only choice, or the preferred choice.

Well, in my view that's pretty close.

Your original premise is that they are a good source of information based on proximity and probability.

What I'm saying is that IMO they are not a source of information that's very distinguishable from the population in general statistically.

If you deem the Average Joe on the street to be a decently good source of investment information (he'll probably tell you "buy stocks", or "buy real estate", or "buy low sell high") then yeah random teachers are approximately equally "good" sources.

I just disagree with your labeling of "average" as "good", and our entire disagreement boils down to this.

My original premise was that Kiyosaki was wrong. That one should not under any circumstances rule teachers (as a group) out as a source for learning about wealth or investing.

Well, of course ruling an entire group out is extreme and irrational. But he's not wrong when he says (very generally) that the school system doesn't equip its students very well for a life as an entrepreneur

The problem here is the vast majority of teachers that are accessible based on proximity are going to be grade-school teachers, who require the least amount of education to teach their classes, and the education they get is less geared towards their topics and more geared towards childhood development. So even going by the "the more educated are more likely to be good with money" argument you put forth (which I strenuously disagree with, but putting that aside for the moment), they are the lowest ones on the totem pole and, by your own arguments, thus the farthest ones you would want to seek such advice from.

Honestly, "my baby boomer uncles who went into skilled trades early in their lives" is a BETTER group to ask than "my uni friends, most of whom are physicists with PhDs".

The former are now retired and have managed/invested their own $ for decades, while the latter are in their mid/late 30s and just starting to have significant savings for the first time in their lives (and often, as I've observed, not yet sure how to invest it optimally).

Education level and even intelligence (any way you want to measure it) are IMO dwarfed as factors by the characteristic "has been managing their own money reasonably successfully for decades" when it comes to who you should go to for advice.

[darkrose50]

Well, in my view that's pretty close.

Your original premise is that they are a good source of information based on proximity and probability.

What I'm saying is that IMO they are not a source of information that's very distinguishable from the population in general statistically.

If you deem the Average Joe on the street to be a decently good source of investment information (he'll probably tell you "buy stocks", or "buy real estate", or "buy low sell high") then yeah random teachers are approximately equally "good" sources.

I just disagree with your labeling of "average" as "good", and all our disagreement boils down to this.

I suppose it all boils down to how much you believe that cultural capital is a thing of value worth seeking out.

We have a profession that has a strong tendency to come from the top two economic quintiles. Not willy-nilly some of the profession comes from the top two quintiles . . . a high concentration of them.

Teachers just may be the only time these kids interact with these socio economic classes. We can't all be like "kids go talk to bankers downtown".

I suppose I am just curious and think that the risk/reward of a conversation with a teacher would be worth a student's time for the chance to learn something.

Well, of course ruling an entire group out is extreme and irrational. But he's not wrong when he says (very generally) that the school system doesn't equip its students very well for a life as an entrepreneur.

I agree that the schools push college too hard, but that is what the parents want. If they tell them to go to not-college, then the parents would burn down the schools. Everyone wants their kids to be a white-collared professional. This is why we don't have woodshop and the like to any degree like once existed. Plumbers (or whatnot) can make bank, they should totally be teaching that more in school.

[Peelee]

Honestly, "my baby boomer uncles who went into skilled trades early in their lives" is a BETTER group to ask than "my uni friends, most of whom are physicists with PhDs".

Oh, I'm not arguing that higher education makes you more likely to be better at investing. Darkrose is. I'm just pointing out how that claim is completely at odds with the claim of "so ask teachers because they're easily accessible to the average person," which he is putting forth as a corollary.

[lio45]

I suppose I am just curious and think that the risk/reward of a conversation with a teacher would be worth a student's time for the chance to learn something.

In fact, my whole point can be summed up this way:

"The risk/reward of a conversation with a teacher is usually worth a student's time for the chance to learn something, but if what you have in mind is advice on how to become rich, then the ratio [likelihood of learning something useful/duration of the conversation] is more advantageous if you choose the wealthiest person you know, instead of any of your teachers. (Occasionally, this may happen to be the same person, but in this case, the characteristic that's the basis on which you're selecting that person is wealth, not profession.)"