Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockdoc77 who wrote (62957)	12/7/2024 3:46:12 PM
From: stockdoc77	2 Recommendations Recommended By Fitzhughlaw jhcimmu Respond to of 63306

An example of where I was blind to what the data was actually showing was my acceptance that the P2 for Emab in lupus was strongly positive, despite the fact that the highest dose group had poor response. I asked management about that data point at an R and D day event and they waved it off and I accepted it, foolishly. Or look at how many very bright people were able to explain away all the irregularities in SAVA P2 data and were totally convinced that the P3 was coming in positive. There is an old quote to the effect that it is hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood (or investments or ethical/moral/religious/political identity) depends on him not understanding it. See that all the time. Even among doctors, who complain about the healthcare system but often the complaints really boil down to they are not getting paid enough. I try be self-aware enough not to fall into that trap.

To: stockdoc77 who wrote (62957)	12/10/2024 8:56:26 AM
From: weatherproof	4 Recommendations Recommended By idahoranch1 jargonweary jhcimmu stockdoc77 Respond to of 63306

>> One common pattern I see in highly intelligent people (and I myself have been guilty of this in the past) is that once convinced of a point of view they can be the most impervious to contrary evidence as they are often able to come up with convincing rationales why that evidence doesnt count or should be dismissed.<< This brings me back to my old college psychology classes and cognitive dissonance theory. It goes a long way in explaining much of what is going on in our country today, but I suppose this is not the board for that discussion. Essentially, as we commit ourselves to supporting a given belief or idea, it becomes increasingly more difficult to walk it back. We challenge contradictory evidence as inconclusive, or something conjured up by some entity whose motives are less than true and honorable. That's one way in which to relieve the angst that comes with the aforementioned dissonance. Another way, of course, would be to change one's belief in the face of conclusive evidence that plainly contradicts that belief.