If investors could be bothered wading through academic research of recent decades on markets and investor behaviour, they'd probably feel like giving investing a wide berth.
Of the many research conclusions published in the past 30-odd years, the most compelling is the one that says no investor can beat the market over time. It seems most investors are trying to win an unwinnable game because there are things about the market and the way investors universally behave that conspire against anyone trying to achieve better returns than everybody else.
The two main handbrakes to success are the Efficient Market Hypothesis and Behavioural Theory. The efficient market hypothesis was developed by Eugene Fama in 1966 and said there are no identifiable patterns in the share market and the prices of all shares at any time are fair and reflect all the information every investor has, and so nobody can have a competitive advantage or find inefficiencies in the market to exploit. So investors should give up trying.
Even professional investors who have achieved better-than-market returns have typically not been able to do it consistently or over long periods. So professional investors too should give up trying - or at least not charge much for the promise of achieving better-than-market returns.
Behavioural finance theory is the label given to the body of research confirming that individual emotions often spoil investors' chances of success. Among the emotionally-driven decisions we make that tend to hurt returns are the tendency to hold on to losing stocks for too long and sell winning stocks too quickly. A second common trait is overconfidence which has us blaming the market or someone else for our mistakes and taking credit and claiming skill even when luck is responsible for successful outcomes.