When you have health, most things in life are a cakewalk. When you don't have have health, even the easiest cakewalk can seem like a mountain. Trading and money are great, but put health first or someone else will be enjoying the money you died for.
More from Mark Minervini
Visualize what you expect to happen and how you will react. More importantly.. see in your mind what can go wrong and how you will react. Make this routine contingency planning.
According to your 3rd book, could you please explain how to practice visualization in trading? @markminervini
— KoRn (@kornkonthorn) July 24, 2021
More from Markminervinilearnings
The word is sacrifice. You are not going to be the best at day trading, swing, value and growth investing. It will be amazing if you can master just one. And you only need one. So pick one and sacrifice the rest! There is no other way unless you want to suck at a bunch of things.
What is the single unavoidable thing you must do to be the best or great at one thing? One word?
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) April 14, 2021
You May Also Like
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?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
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?