Reasonable beats rational, and that is a harder standard than it sounds

Housel's argument is that a financial plan you can actually keep during a downturn beats an optimal one you abandon. The claim is modest and widely agreed with in the abstract.

It is much harder in practice, because it requires knowing your own behaviour under stress, and almost nobody has good information about that until they have been tested. Most people discover their real risk tolerance exactly once, at the worst possible moment.

The book is strong on stories and light on mechanism. It tells you temperament matters more than spreadsheets without telling you how to find out what your temperament is before it costs you.

Has anyone here actually learned their risk tolerance in advance, rather than during a crash?