Today's Opening Belle is brought to you by our partners EQONEX & Utrust

EQONEX: Institutional-grade crypto exchange, built to support and enhance crypto adoption.

Utrust: Accept payments in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and major digital currencies

Some might think this is a bit of a controversial topic.

I'd agree that it is. I don't think it should be.

Most importantly, I don't care & we gon' talk about it anyway.

The 'Trust The Science' message doesn't mix well with politics, especially when there are clear conflicts of interest...

Let's take this example πŸ‘‡

Whatever your view on whether that account is 100% accurate those really aren't good optics.

And the politics can undermine the science.

More specifically, it undermines belief/faith in 'the system' that allows science to operate free of political pressure. Β 

Instead we've got:

Pro-Vax: Why don't you trust the science you idiots?

Anti-Vax: Why do you trust the politicians you idiots?

The vaccine has become a vehicle for debate on the state of society

Vaccine mandates in the US (land of the free) have crossed a line for many.

And supporting the lab-leak theory was enough to get people cancelled in the early stages of the pandemic...

Away from the extremes reported in the headlines, the underlying issue is one of trust/distrust in the authorities and nothing to do with the science itself.

It's tempting to say that this is evidence for the imminent downfall of society.

More likely is that governments have pushed their luck with the people, by taking the 'nudge' to extremes. ("desperate times" etc.)

It's unlikely they'll keep pushing (if they want to get elected again). Mean reversion is not unique to markets.

The constant evolution of scientific understanding will continue... πŸ‘‡

I once saw an incredible lecture in Berkeley by a historian of science, one of the best talks I have ever seen. He started his talk sitting on the desk amongst a huge pile of physics textbooks from history, each in its day "the best textbook of its time."
He began by showing us the text written by a student of Isaac Newton, which explained Newtonian forces and the motion of planets. Nevertheless, it had various mistakes and misunderstandings. He set it aside and moved to the next book, also excellent, but also flawed in some way.
And then the next. The speaker proceeded systematically through the historical procession of physics texts, highlighting how each had improved upon its predecessors, but also explaining in specific detail ways in which each of them was flawed.
Some were flawed in their account of light, another had an etching of a comet, "drawn by a person who had *never* seen a comet." Eventually, the progression moved into the 20th century, but still the texts were wrong on various fundamental points, often now quite technical.
Finally, he got to the physics text used currently in Intro Physics classes. He explained how it had improved on its predecessor, and then said that he didn't know of any specific physics issue it got wrong. He silently placed it on top of the pile of earlier, flawed texts.
What a punchline! And what an effective way to convey his main point. The implication was completely clear that of course we should expect that eventually this text also will come to be seen as fundamentally wrong on some issue or other. Source: Joel David Hamkins

Sponsored: Easily receive crypto payments with Utrust πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡


Reality is flexible... πŸ‘‡


There is no red in this specimen image. The color is a created in your mind. We see what we expect to see with the minimum amount of sensor input, then the HumanOS makes a guess.

Love this.

An example of our brains literally making it up as they go along.

Neuroscientists said the big principles that underlie how our brains process what we see also underlie most of our thinking.
Illusions are β€œthe basis of superstition, the basis of magical thinking,” Martinez-Conde says.
β€œIt’s the basis for a lot of erroneous beliefs. We’re very uncomfortable with uncertainty. The ambiguity is going to be resolved one way or another, and sometimes in a way that does not match reality.”
Naive realism is the feeling that our perception of the world reflects the truth.

Loads more here πŸ‘‡

β€œReality” is constructed by your brain. Here’s what that means, and why it matters.
What the science of visual illusions can teach us about our polarized world.

Sponsored: Trade with EQONEX and claim your $350 Welcome Bonus πŸ‘‡


Oh really?!

Some crazy stats on this via 'JJ' (& Brent Donnelly)

  • In S & P stock indexes, 90 days of extreme readings has been the norm. The recent up-trend stayed overbought (> 85%) ... for 270 days this year.

  • In weekly data the NASDQ remained above 90% for roughly 7 of the last 9 years and fewer than 3 monthly samples under 50%.

'Extreme overbought conditions are normal for trending markets... In trends, therefore, crowds are bullish.'

Don't know what financial news stories are important and what is complete bullsh*t? Hop onto our filtered news channel.

It's completely free πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡

Macrodesiac News Channel
You can view and join @MacrodesiacNews right away.

And if you really want to get to grips with how global markets and economics work, with trade ideas to give you actionable context, then come and join us as a premium member where you're likely going to get a nice Market IQ boost. πŸ‘‡

Join Macrodesiac - Level Up Your Market IQ
Free Daily News & Market Commentary.No Jargon - Just Macro In Plain English -Go Premium!

Check out our reviews on TrustPilot πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡πŸ‘‡

Macrodesiac is rated β€œExcellent” with 4.4 / 5 on Trustpilot
Do you agree with Macrodesiac ’s TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 65 customers have already said.