Reliance on quick, efficient, and "low effort" thought processes yields conservative ideologies, while effortful and deliberate reasoning yields liberal ideologies.
thought process"...[P]olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.
Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism... Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural."
Scott Eidelman, PhD, Christian S. Crandall, PhD, Jeffrey A. Goodman, PhD, and John C. Blanchar, "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism," Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2012
Kinda says it all doesn't it teabag. Still watching the slow death. Funny? Sad? A little of both
In addition to a defective understanding of your native tongue, you are also ignorant of rudometary finance. OSIR had about 42MM of cash and EQUIVALENTS. (about a buck and half per share.) Finance for Dummies is good place to start-- ask a pal to buy if for you for x-mas.
AR balance growing?? Huh? BTW A/R isn't "revenue" my friend. A/R is accounts receivable. When a receivable is booked as revenue is far beyond your ability to comprehend so I wont confuse you. Are you a republican? Just wondering.
Uh What stem cell pipeline??? OSIR is a Biosurgery company. Maybe you missed the sale of their stem cell portfolio to Mesoblast. Are you a republican by any chance?
Why don't you tell what conservative means. My guess it will be like Christians trying to explain christianity when they can't even go the same churches. I was in a little GA shithole one time and there was one main intersection and it had THREE Baptist churches on it. Now I understand one is for the colored folk but in town of about 2k they couldn't even go to the same BAPTIST church . So teapig y'all have to tell me what "flavor" conservative you are. Then and only then will I be able to resume humiliating you.
Oh and BTW doneky although you SAY you can cite multiple studies-- but like a teapig you don't.
Kinda funny when you don't know the difference between A/R and revenue and can't even find CASH on the balance sheet.
It's wasn't a surprise to those who have elementary school math skills. Cash minus quarterly burn rate= months/q's of operations without additional financing donkey. BTW irrespective of the results, this trial will NEVER get FDA approval.
0. Conservatism is focused on preventing negative outcomes, while liberalism is focused on advancing positive outcomes.
"Political liberalism and conservatism differ in provide versus protect orientations, specifically providing for group members' welfare (political Left) and protecting the group from harm (political Right). These reflect the fundamental psychological distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. Conservatism is avoidance based; it is focused on preventing negative outcomes (e.g., societal losses) and seeks to regulate society via inhibition (restraints) in the interests of social order. Liberalism is approach based; it is focused on advancing positive outcomes (e.g., societal gains) and seeks to regulate society via activation (interventions) in the interests of social justice."
Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, PhD, "To Provide or Protect: Motivational Bases of Political Liberalism and Conservatism," Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, Aug. 2009
In other words you teapigs are qunts. Thats why you love defense spending to keep away your imaginary threats.
15. When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary.
fish"[We] found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern...
Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal."
David M. Amodio, PhD, John T. Jost, PhD, Sarah L. Master, PhD, and Cindy M. Yee, PhD, "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism," Nature Neuroscience, Sep. 9, 2007
non thinking qunts. If something isn't working keep doing it!!!
Oh Speedy after armed lunatic you're my favorite guppy. This just in donkey, its your teapig pals that have their hand in your pocket you'r ejust too schtooopid to recognize it. keep sucking Trump and Romney's diqks. They 're lookin out fer ya!!!!
Board is dead. Alll the old longs crawled off an died. Ceptin my favorite teabags. NICE TRADE donkeys!
Ted Cruz. Wait isn't he Canadian. Let see his birth certificate.
Cuban Illegal by way of Canada. Lock that #$%$ up and send him back to Cuba!!!!!!!
OMG. Pink sheets. Hey armed lunatic--NICE TRADE/ BTW now even teapig like johnny "hit on the head too many times" McCain are sayin cruz isnt an American/ Funny sheeeazit.
This is hilarious. You're so frigggin schtoopid you don't realize the article is talking about YOU -- The climate hoax nutbags. I suppose you are one of those who wants to bomb Agrabah because it is Muslim. You do realize you will be incrementally less schtoopid simply by turning of Fox news.
"Conscious of the damage to science of political agendas, scientists should be averse to science’s being used for political ends and instead educate the public, which is easily confused by the most basic scientific concepts. A recent poll showed that 80 percent of those surveyed backed mandatory labeling on foods containing DNA — an illustration of how easy it is to bamboozle Americans with politics dressed up as science. "
It's Merck you donkey and the approval was for SECOND line treatment. If you're holding your breath thinking there will be many approvals from P1B trials, people will be calling you blue boy pretty soon.
Doubt that she has given away anything.
A) there are more than two subtypes. At least 8 large subtype buckets and perhaps thousands of cell lines per video.
B) 14-15 months is no longer the right number, as I done told y'all several years ago. NEW SOC is about 20 months (with n-119 UCLA control lived 17 months per video) You should at least use realistic control OS numbers while fantasizing. Say it with me-- Control will live at least 17 months and more likely 20.
C) What is ambiguous or confusing about "ALL of them are living longer. They are all living longer. The only possible ambiguity is whether she is means longer than the 14.7 month Stupps baseline or more recent experience, which is about 20 months. The implication is that DC-VAX is working (since they are ALL getting DC-Vax upon progression). This is good news for patients but arguably BAD news for the trial. This is a crossover trial which means you don't have a clear separation between the control and trial arms. All you have is a timing difference in getting DC-Vax. ("earlier vs later " according to Liau) This will make it very hard to get separation between the curves (if any) and will make the results ambiguous. Simply put ALL patients are getting DC-Vax.There is effectively no control group.
Here's the takeaway. Given the advances in understanding of GBM, (especially methylated vs unmethylated and the four subgroups - all with wildly different OS's) and given that this trial has PFS as an endpoint, there is almost zero chance the trial results in approval. That said it may still provide data worthy of a new trial and sufficiently optimistic to move the stock (assuming the stock price is around these levels). But if you still need to design it a s crossover you are kinda back to square one.
You have a lotta nerve trying to pass yourself off as someone who teaches grad students. The Median OS is NOT "14-18 months ... as measured from the last pt assigned to control (we don't know when that was or will be)." you moron.
Median is established when no living patient can influence the median which is WELL before the last pt dies. The date on which at median will be reached will be affected by (among other things) the rate /timing in which patients were enrolled a variable you fail to account for and and one which an UNDERgraduate student would know.
Liar and moron.
If you think OS is gonna be ignored you are a fool ( but your previous posts have already established that. Tell us more about medians and you "grad students"
Oh and BTW donkey 2 survival in GBM is about 30% even 5 year survival is 10 % -- You have been spewing on this board for years and you don't even know the most basic info? Too busy teaching your "grad students"?"
Better adjust your fantasies to reflect some incremental quanta of reality.
Ms. Liau seems to think the crossover is hurting the trial (see minute 19 in the video) but I guess a donkey who can't calculate a median knows more than she does.