I read the article and tried to read the linked study (paywall). But I see no mention of the 'random' part of this outside the introductory paragraph. In order

I read the article and tried to read the linked study (paywall). But I see no mention of the 'random' part of this outside the introductory paragraph. In order for the headline to be true, wouldn't the study have had do asses some performance of 'random' picks? Rather it seems that people were encouraged to take more 'risky' stock picks, and that led to some improved success, not anything to do with random. I think the title and introduction are wrong, having extrapolated incorrectly from the study itself. I don't really know since I can't read the study. But I think I strongly disagree with the premise. I think picking stocks at random is likely to lead to uninterested investors who may lose interest in frequent contributions to their stock accounts as they have no personal connection or awareness or interest in the location or use of their funds. Yes, diversification is important, but so is awareness. Is it really better for the individual who may unknowingly invest in weapons manufacturing or a declining coal business despite their own morals and indicators of poor picks? I don't even think this was tested for in the first place.