Topley's Top 10

)..

1. 17.3% Gain in 8 Weeks 99th Percentile Move

..

2. Annual IPOS 25 Years ….2021 SPAC Frenzy….2026 Running at Average Pace but Big 3 are Difference

Dorsey Wright There have been 152 IPOs already this year, looking at data through the end of May. IPOs are rarely consistent month-to-month, but if we did continue at that pace in the second half of the year, we’d be close to the pace of the 347 IPOs seen in 2025. This puts us in the average to above-average range for historical IPO counts going back through 2000.

..

3. IPO ETF Breaks to New Highs…50day thru 200Day to Upside

..

4. 30 Major IPOS-One Year Drawdown

..

5. Tokenization of Stocks Expanding

.

6. Joe Weisenthal List of Reasons for Crypto Winter

.

7. IBM Beating XLK Tech ETF

.

8. Gold Overtakes US Government Bonds as the World’s Top Reserve Asset-FT …Single Biggest Buyer of Gold 2025 Tether

….

9. Biggest Central Bank Buyers 2025

..

10. 2 Frustrating Habits of the Most Intelligent People

Why intelligent minds often face misunderstandings from others.-Psychology Today --Mark Travers Ph.D.

Key points

• Intelligent people often update beliefs mid-conversation, reflecting cognitive agility.

• Higher intelligence tolerates ambiguity and thrives on revising ideas.

• Belief updating showcases intelligence, while fence-sitting signals cognitive weakness.

We tend to picture intelligence as exemplary mental organization: crisp opinions, sharp delivery, and confident stances held firmly. The “smart person” in the room isn’t the one who hedges or backtracks. It’s the one who walks in already knowing the answer, delivers it cleanly, and moves on. But that picture, research increasingly suggests, has it backwards.

Highly intelligent people are not always faster, calmer, or more decisive. Sometimes, their minds are busier, slower, and more conflicted. In my work as a psychological researcher, I’ve noticed that people with higher cognitive ability are often misunderstood simply because their mental habits don’t always look the way we expect intelligence to look. Two habits in particular tend to get them misread, and both are far more cognitively sophisticated than they appear.

1. Changing Their Mind Mid-Argument

Few things irritate people more in conversation than someone who contradicts themselves. Someone who states a position with apparent confidence, then stops mid-thought and says, “Actually, I think I was wrong about that.” It reads as wishy-washy, underprepared, or lacking conviction. In a meeting, it can cost someone credibility. In an argument, it looks like surrender.

What it actually reflects, however, is one of the clearest behavioral markers of higher intelligence: belief updating, or the willingness to revise a held position when confronted with new evidence, even when that confrontation happens in real time, in public, at social cost.

A 2024 study published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications found consistent evidence that individuals with higher fluid intelligence changed their attitudes more readily in response to correction, while those with lower reasoning ability showed a stronger tendency to persist with misinformation even after receiving a correction message. In other words, the person in the room most willing to say “I was wrong” is often, cognitively speaking, the most capable one there.

This connects to a broader pattern researchers have identified in how intelligent people relate to uncertainty. Research shows that individuals with a lower need for cognitive closure tend to tolerate ambiguity more easily, and separate lines of work suggest that higher cognitive ability is associated with greater openness and cognitive flexibility. Where most people feel pressure to land on a position and hold it, highly intelligent individuals are more comfortable sitting in the revision process, even when that process is visible to others.

The frustrating part for observers is precisely this: the intelligent person doesn’t feel the urgency to perform with certainty before they’re ready. And if the thinking is still happening, they’ll do it out loud.

Consider the colleague who, midway through a strategy meeting, says, “I want to walk back what I said ten minutes ago,” and the room visibly deflates. To everyone else, it signals confusion. To that person’s brain, it signals that something more accurate just became available, and loyalty to the original position would mean ignoring it.

The distinction worth drawing is between belief updating and chronic fence-sitting. Updating is responsive, that is, it moves in reaction to new evidence. Fence-sitting is avoidant, as it moves in reaction to social pressure. One reflects cognitive strength. The other can signal the opposite. But in everyday settings, the two tend to get collapsed into the same frustrated label: unreliable.

2. Giving Too Much Unnecessary Context

Imagine you ask a simple question to someone and receive a five-minute answer that starts three steps before the point. There are caveats, qualifications, historical background, and exceptions to exceptions. The person doesn’t seem to register that you needed a sentence, not a seminar. It can feel patronizing, exhausting, or simply socially tone-deaf.

What you are almost certainly witnessing, however, is a well-documented cognitive phenomenon called the Curse of Knowledge—and it correlates directly with genuine expertise and deeper cognitive ability.

The Curse of Knowledge is a cognitive bias that causes the brain to overestimate how much other people understand. When we master an idea, we lose access to the memory of how it felt not to understand it. This creates a blind spot that makes it difficult to empathize with people who don’t share our background. The deeper the knowledge, the harder it is to locate the entry point for someone who doesn’t share it.

Highly intelligent people have often, entirely unconsciously, built elaborate mental scaffolding around a topic over years of thinking about it. When they try to explain it, they dismantle that scaffolding from the top down, which means they start with all the architecture you don’t yet have, rather than with the ground-floor answer you actually asked for.

When experts develop complex mental models for organizing information, the problem in communication arises because those models aren’t shared—the explanation becomes accurate, thorough and, for the listener, completely impenetrable.

To the person on the receiving end, this registers as a failure of social awareness. But it’s a side effect of too much knowledge, not too little. The highly intelligent person isn’t unable to read the room; they genuinely can’t locate where the room is relative to where their own thinking begins.

Think of the researcher who responds to “what do you work on?” with a ten-minute tour of their entire field. Or the engineer who answers “how does this feature work?” by explaining the underlying architecture from first principles. The intention is almost always generosity: a desire to give you the real answer, the full picture, the thing that actually makes sense of it. The social effect, unfortunately, is often the opposite.

It’s worth noting that the Curse of Knowledge doesn’t excuse poor communication—over time, it’s a skill gap worth closing. But understanding its origin matters. The next time someone overexplains to the point of frustration, the more useful question isn’t “why can’t they read the room?” It’s “how much do they actually know about this?” The answer, often, is more than they can easily compress.

A version of this post also appears on Forbes.com. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-i

..

Did someone forward this email to you? Get your own:

Disclosure

Indices that may be included herein are unmanaged indices and one cannot directly invest in an index. Index returns do not reflect the impact of any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. The index information included herein is for illustrative purposes only.

Material for market review represents an assessment of the market environment at a specific point in time and is not intended to be a forecast of future events, or a guarantee of future results.
Material compiled by Lansing Street Advisors is based on publicly available data at the time of compilation. Lansing Street Advisors makes no warranties or representation of any kind relating to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the data and shall not have liability for any damages of any kind relating to the use such data.

To the extent that content includes references to securities, those references do not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy, sell or hold such security as information is provided for educational purposes only. Articles should not be considered investment advice and the information contain within should not be relied upon in assessing whether or not to invest in any securities or asset classes mentioned. Articles have been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Securities discussed may not be suitable for all investors. Please keep in mind that a company’s past financial performance, including the performance of its share price, does not guarantee future results.

Lansing Street Advisors is a registered investment adviser with the State of Pennsylvania.