text:
Mark Nieuwenstein
University of Groningen, Netherlands
Stephan Dickert
Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
Carina Remmers
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Germany
Front. Psychol., 07 November 2017
Sec. Cognition
Intuitive Choices Lead to Intensified Positive Emotions: An Overlooked Reason for "Intuition Bias"?
Geir Kirkebøen* and Gro H. H. Nordbye
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
People have, for many well-documented reasons, a tendency to overemphasize their intuitions and to follow them, even when they should not. This "intuition bias" leads to several kinds of specific intuitive biases in judgments and decision making. Previous studies have shown that characteristics of the decision process have a tendency to "leak" into the experience of the choice outcome. We explore whether intuitive choices influence the experience of the choice outcomes differently from "non-intuitive," analytic choices. Since intuition is feeling based, we examine in particular if intuitive choices have stronger affective consequences than non-intuitive ones. Participants in two scenario studies (N = 90; N = 126) rated the feelings of decision makers who experienced a conflict between two options, one intuitively appealing and another that appeared preferable on analytic grounds. Choosing the intuitive alternative was anticipated to lead to somewhat more regret after negative outcomes and, in particular, much more satisfaction with positive outcomes. In two autobiographical studies, one with psychology students (N = 88) and the other with experienced engineers (N = 99), participants were asked to provide examples of choice conflicts between an intuitive and a non-intuitive option from their own private or professional lives. Both groups showed a tendency to report stronger emotions, in particular positive, after intuitive choices. One well-established explanation for intuition bias focuses on the nature of people's anticipated negative counterfactual thoughts if their decisions were to turn out badly. The present data indicate that intuitive choices intensify positive emotions, anticipated and real, after successful outcomes much more than negative emotions after failures. Positive outcomes are also more commonly expected than negative ones, when we make choices. We argue that markedly amplified emotions, mediated by stronger personal involvement, in the positive outcomes of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices, is an overlooked reason for intuition bias.
In daily life as well as in professional contexts, it is often possible to distinguish between decisions based on purposeful deliberation and reflection and more spontaneous, "intuitive" decisions. On a theoretical level, this distinction is reflected in various "dual process" theories (e.g., Chaiken and Trope, 1999; Evans, 2003), as encapsulated by, for example, the contrast between (fast) intuitive "System 1" and (slow) analytic "System 2" thinking (e.g., Stanovich and West, 2000; Kahneman, 2011). While it has been argued that these alternative ways of thinking should not be conceptualized as two separate "systems" (Keren and Schul, 2009), they do nonetheless reflect different approaches to a choice task. Researchers have long debated which approach is best under what conditions (e.g., Hammond et al., 1987; Wilson and Schooler, 1991; Gladwell, 2005; Hogarth, 2005, 2010; Dane et al., 2012). On the other hand, Inbar et al. (2010) found that, generally, decision makers tend to hold similar opinions about whether, and when, it is better to follow analytic procedures and when they should rather go with their gut.
In the present paper, we focus on choice dilemmas (similar to those studied by Simmons and Nelson, 2006) in which one option is (subjectively) more intuitively appealing, while the other, "non-intuitive" option is more strongly supported by the objective information at hand. Consider a hiring situation in which one candidate gives a better "impression" during the job interview and another candidate has a better record of education and relevant work experience. It is not obvious which candidate will end up being selected. Defined as an "intuitive choice" and a "non-intuitive choice," this scenario represents a choice between the intuitive and the non-intuitive options, respectively, in such choice situations.
The purpose of the present paper is to go one step beyond the decision itself and examine whether the outcome of an intuitive choice will be evaluated differently from the same outcome of a non-intuitive choice. Such a difference may, in turn, predispose people to favor intuitive choices, and thus contribute to "intuition bias" in judgment and decision making.
Intuition Bias
Psychological research has uncovered a widespread and strong tendency for people to rely on their intuitions and to follow them, even when they should not. This exaggerated tendency can be described as a general "intuition bias," which lies at the root of a variety of psychological phenomena and leads to several more specific intuitive biases of judgment and decision making (e.g., Kahneman, 2011).
Many very different reasons for intuition bias have been posited. According to the two-system perspective, for instance, intuitive System 1 approaches often prevail over System 2 reasoning because people are unmotivated (cognitively lazy) or unable (cognitively overloaded) to apply the latter. However, even when neither laziness nor busyness are in play, people's tendency to overemphasize their intuitions can emerge from intrinsic insufficiencies in System 2 corrections of System 1 intuitions—for example, insufficient adjustment after (intuitive) "anchoring" (e.g., Epley and Gilovich, 2006).
Another consideration regarding intuition bias with respect to decision making is the nature of people's anticipated counterfactual thoughts concerning prospective outcomes of the decision if it were to turn out badly. An intuitive preference is automatic and unbidden. It is often experienced as something that is "given," and to choose otherwise can be seen as an act of hubris that is likely to be punished by an undesirable result (e.g., Risen and Gilovich, 2008).
Prior studies have also suggested metacognitive explanations for a person's strong tendency to go with their gut (e.g., Simmons and Nelson, 2006; Alter et al., 2007). For example, Simmons and Nelson (2006) demonstrated convincingly that people often choose intuitive alternatives rather than equally valid non-intuitive ones "because intuitions often spring to mind with subjective ease, and the subjective ease leads people to hold their intuitions with high confidence" (p. 409).
Thus, many plausible and well-founded explanations have been advanced with regard to intuition bias. In this article, we suggest still another reason, overlooked as far as we know, behind decision makers' strong tendency to go with their gut.
The Decision Process and How Outcomes Are Assessed
It is broadly accepted that behavior in general is shaped by consequences, and several studies have further found that characteristics of the decision process have a tendency to "leak" into the experience of the outcome (Keys and Schwartz, 2007). For example, Kirkebøen et al. (2013) established that decision reversals come with a cost: even if the final outcomes were equally good, those who ended up with a particular outcome after changing their mind reported markedly stronger post-outcome regret than those who achieved the same outcome without changing their mind.
In line with this, we expect that immediate intuitive and (more) reflective non-intuitive choices will influence differently the way outcomes are assessed, which, in turn, may contribute to intuition bias in decision making. So, what is the difference between how a decision maker experiences an outcome following an intuitive versus a non-intuitive choice?
The Fluency of Action Selection and the Experience of Self-agency
The experience of "self-agency" has been described as "the feeling that one causes one's own actions and their outcomes" (Aarts et al., 2009, p. 967). According to the traditional view, such a sensation is the result of a retrospective inference based on matching actual effects of an action with its expected effects (e.g., Moore and Haggard, 2008). However, Chambon and Haggard (2012) have demonstrated that the strength of experienced self-agency also reflects the fluency of action selection. Participants in their study were offered a choice of several alternatives, and the researchers influenced their selections through subliminal priming. It was found that, "when people responded to a target that was compatible with a preceding subliminal prime, they felt stronger sense of control over subsequent effect than when the preceding prime was incompatible" (Chambon and Haggard, 2012, p. 441). In short, they showed that a "sense of agency is partly generated prospectively, in advance of knowing the actual outcome of actions" (Chambon and Haggard, 2012, p. 441).
Research Hypothesis
Intuition is feelings-based, and, as it is reasoned that characteristics of the decision process have a tendency to "leak" into the experience of the outcome, this implies that the outcome of feelings-based intuitive decisions will produce a stronger affective impact than will non-intuitive decisions.
We know that intuitions, or the intuitive alternative, usually come with subjective ease (e.g., Simmons and Nelson, 2006). In Chambon and Haggard's (2012) terminology, this means that there should be a "greater fluency of action selection" when a person chooses the intuitive action versus the non-intuitive alternative. Based on Chambon and Haggard's (2012) findings, we further expect that choosing the intuitive alternative will increase the decision maker's experience of self-agency and thus the feeling of personal involvement, compared to what choosing the non-intuitive alternative would do. Stronger personal involvement should also make people more emotionally involved in their intuitive than in their non-intuitive choices.
Hence, we hypothesize that people are more personally involved and experience more intensified emotions, anticipated and actual, in response to the outcomes of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices. We will additionally argue that these intensified feelings reinforce people's tendency to go with their gut when making decisions.
We conducted two kinds of studies to explore our hypothesis: scenario studies and retrospective, autobiographical studies. In the scenario studies (Study 1 and Study 2), we presented the participants with choice situations within which the decision maker had two options, one supported by objective information (the non-intuitive choice) and the other supported by (holistic) intuitions—a gut feeling, an interview impression, and so on (the intuitive choice). In the retrospective studies (Study 3 and Study 4), we asked participants to report decision situations from their own life in which they had experienced a conflict between two such options. Participants in Study 3 were young psychology students, describing mostly choices they had made in their private life, whereas participants in Study 4 were experienced engineers who were asked to report professional decisions they had made.
The participants were undergraduate psychology students at the University of Oslo (N = 90; male = 22, female = 68; Mage = 23.44 years, SD = 5.31) who volunteered to take part in the study, which was conducted using pen and paper in a classroom setting.
The students were first asked about their preferences for intuitive versus non-intuitive choice alternatives, formulated in general terms: "Imagine you have a choice between two alternatives where your gut feeling favors one (the intuitive option) and rational analysis, facts, etc. favor the other (the non-intuitive option)." Participants were then presented with three concrete choice scenarios, as follows:
(1) Employment of data manager—a leader hires a data manager according to a job interview impression (intuitive option) or according to factual information about the applicants (non-intuitive option);
(2) Choice of university—a student chooses a university for a Master's program according to the impression she got during a short visit to the universities (intuitive option) or according to factual information about the universities (non-intuitive option);
(3) Choice of lodger—selecting a lodger for a shared apartment based on the gut feeling after an interview (intuitive option) or based on references from previous landlords (non-intuitive option).
There were four versions ("V1" to "V4") of each choice scenario, as follows:
(1) V1—trust intuition, negative outcome (i.e., the participant was asked to imagine that the protagonist had chosen the intuitively appealing alternative, which however turned out to be a failure);
(2) V2—do not trust intuition, negative outcome;
(3) V3—trust intuition, positive outcome;
(4) V4—do not trust intuition, positive outcome.
Each participant was presented with the general and the three concrete choice scenarios, with one scenario in version V1, another in version V2, etc. The four choice versions were randomly combined with the four choice situations.
For each choice situation, participants were asked (before the outcome was disclosed) to what extent they thought that the decision should be based on analysis (of facts) versus intuition, rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale (from 1 "Analysis only" to 9 "Intuition only"). Then, they were asked which option—the intuitive or the non-intuitive alternative—they themselves would have chosen. After receiving information about the outcome, they were asked to indicate how much they thought they would regret choices leading to negative outcomes (versions V1 and V2), and how satisfied they imagined they would be with choices having positive outcomes (versions V3 and V4).
We have posited that people are more personally involved following intuitive choices. If so, they should experience stronger feeling of responsibility for the outcomes of such choices. We therefore also asked, for all the scenarios, how much responsibility (guilt, credit) the participants expected to feel with respect to each outcome. All questions were answered according to 9-point Likert-type scales.
To the first question about how much they favored analysis and intuition in general, participants gave mean ratings on the 1–9 scale that indicated they would emphasize analysis and intuition almost equally (M = 4.96, SD = 1.60). Similar numbers of participants said that, in general, they would prefer the intuitive option (48.9%) and the non-intuitive alternative (51.1%). However, all three concrete scenario ratings were above the midpoint of the analysis–intuition scale, indicating a preference for relying on intuition: Employment of data manager, M = 5.77, SD = 1.87; Choice of university, M = 5.38, SD = 1.96; and Choice of lodger, M = 5.40, SD = 2.03). Correspondingly, a clear majority answered that they would themselves have chosen the intuitive alternative: respectively, Employment of data manager, 74.4% [a chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates χ2 (1, n = 90) = 21.511, p < 0.001]; Choice of university, 56.3% [χ2 (1, n = 87) = 1.391, p = 0.238]; and Choice of lodger, 60.7% [χ2 (1, n = 89) = 4.056, p = 0.044]. Altogether, the intuitive options were chosen almost twice as often as the non-intuitive ones.
Overall, when we analyzed the three concrete scenarios combined, we found a significant tendency toward choosing the intuitive option (63.9 %, p < 0.001, 2-tailed, binomial test). The participants expected to be more satisfied when obtaining a positive outcome from an intuitive choice (M = 8.11, SD = 1.34) than from a non-intuitive choice (M = 7.39, SD = 1.28), t(129) = 3.100, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.55. They also expected to regret somewhat more obtaining a negative outcome from an intuitive choice (M = 7.19, SD = 1.52) than from a non-intuitive choice (M = 6.67, SD = 2.01); however, this difference failed to reach significance with a two-tailed test, t(135) = 1.716, p = 0.088, Cohen's d = 0.29.
Similarly, the participants anticipated feeling more responsibility (credit) when ending up with a positive outcome from an intuitive choice (M = 7.03, SD = 1.55) versus a non-intuitive choice (M = 6.40, SD = 1.77), t(128) = 2.158, p = 0.033, Cohen's d = 0.38. They also expected to feel more responsibility (guilt) when ending up with a negative outcome from an intuitive choice (M = 7.34, SD = 1.42) versus a non-intuitive choice (M = 6.84, SD = 1.93), but this difference failed to reach significance, t(135) = 1.717, p = 0.088, Cohen's d = 0.30.
When participants were asked about choices in general, they reported that they did not expect to feel more strongly about the outcomes of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices. However, in the concrete scenarios, they anticipated stronger feelings following the outcomes of intuitive choices.
Previous studies have focused on how decision makers frame their feelings/thoughts in the case of negative outcomes of intuitive choices versus deliberate choices (e.g., Kruger et al., 2005; Risen and Gilovich, 2008). In contrast, the present study found a significant difference only between projected emotions in positive outcomes of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices, whereas the difference between the anticipated feelings in negative outcomes were not found to be significant.
It was found that participants felt more responsibility (credit, guilt) for the outcome of intuitive choices, especially in the case of positive outcomes. This result may indicate that the decision makers consider themselves more personally involved in their intuitive choices (e.g., Woolfolk et al., 2006; see also the section "General Discussion" below).
In sum, the findings of Study 1 support our hypothesis that people are more personally involved in their intuitive choices and experience more intensified emotions in response to the outcomes of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices, in particular in relation to positive decision outcomes.
The participants in Study 2 were undergraduate psychology students at the University of Oslo (N = 126; male = 22, female = 104; Mage = 25.60 years, SD = 5.92), who volunteered to take part in the study. In Study 1, the participants were asked to anticipate their own feelings when choosing either intuitively or non-intuitively, in a between-subjects design. In Study 2, we asked participants to anticipate other decision makers' feelings, in a combination of between- and within-subjects designs. The study was conducted using pen and paper in a classroom setting.
As in Study 1, participants were presented with different choice situations in which the decision maker had two options, one favoring intuitive feelings and the other reasons. Two scenarios were used: the "Employment of data manager" scenario from Study 1 and an "Ordering of goods for a fashion chain" scenario in which a shop manager orders clothing items according to her own intuitions (intuitive option) or according to an analysis of market trends, etc. (non-intuitive option).
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups (conditions): (A), (B), (C), or (D). In all the groups, they were presented with one choice from each of the two scenarios. The order of the choice scenarios varied (see Figure 1). The first was "Ordering of goods" for participants in groups (A) and (B), and "Employment" for participants in groups (C) and (D). For each choice, participants were asked to compare two hypothetical decision makers, one of whom followed her intuition whereas the other selected the alternative incorporating more objective information. In one of the choice scenarios, both the intuitive and the non-intuitive decision maker succeeded or failed. In the other scenario, one of them failed and the other succeeded.
FIGURE 1. The choices in the four groups (conditions): (A), (B), (C) and (D), in Study 2.
For instance, in group (A), the "Ordering of goods" scenario described two sales managers, Anne and Berit, who ordered the spring collection of clothes according to an intuitive or a non-intuitive approach, respectively, and they were both successful. Group (A) participants were questioned as follows:
• ANNE did not take the analyses of previous sales into account. She followed her intuition, and succeeded. How satisfied (on a scale of 1 to 7) do you imagine that ANNE was when she realized that she had made the right choice?
• BERIT did not follow her intuition. She based the ordering of goods on analyses of previous sales, and succeeded. How satisfied (on a scale of 1 to 7) do you imagine that BERIT was when she realized that she had made the right choice?
In the same group (A), the "Employment" scenario described two heads of a computer enterprise, Kari and Finn, who employed a new data manager according to, respectively, an intuitive (based on a job interview impression) or a non-intuitive approach (based on the applicant's record). One was successful and the other not. Group (A) participants were questioned as follows:
• KARI did not emphasize the information in the applications. She followed her intuition after the job interviews, and failed. To what extent (on a scale of 1 to 7) do you imagine that KARI will feel regret when she realizes that she had made the wrong choice?
• FINN did not follow his intuition. He based his decision making on the information provided in the applications, and succeeded. How satisfied (on a scale of 1 to 7) do you imagine that FINN was when he realized that he had made the right choice?
Within-Subjects Comparisons
In the first choice in group (A) (n = 31), both the intuitive and the non-intuitive decision maker succeeded in the "Ordering of goods" scenario; in the first choice in group (B) (n = 34), they both failed in the "Ordering of goods" scenario; in the first choice in group (C) (n = 30), they both failed in the "Employment" scenario; and, in the first choice in group (D) (n = 28), the intuitive and the non-intuitive decision makers both succeeded in the "Employment" scenario. These within-subjects designs allowed participants to directly compare intuitive and non-intuitive choices having the same outcome.
Between-Subjects Comparisons
In the second choice in group (A), the intuitive decision maker failed in the "Employment" scenario, while the non-intuitive one succeeded. In the second choice in group (B), the non-intuitive decision maker failed in the "Employment" scenario while the intuitive one succeeded. For participants in group (C), the second choice scenario was "Ordering of goods," and the intuitive decision maker failed while the non-intuitive one succeeded. In the second choice in group (D), the non-intuitive decision maker failed in the "Ordering of goods" scenario while the intuitive one succeeded.
For the second choice scenario, we analyzed the ratings of the participants in a between-subjects design. We compared the ratings of participants of two scenarios and two groups, one in which the hypothetical decision maker made a successful (unsuccessful) intuitive choice, and one in which he/she made a successful (unsuccessful) non-intuitive choice in the same scenario. For instance, we compared the ratings of the participants in the "Employment" scenario in groups (A) and (B), where the intuitive decision maker failed in group (A) and the non-intuitive decision maker failed in group (B).
After receiving information about the respective outcomes, participants were asked to rate, for each choice, how much they thought that the hypothetical decision makers in the scenarios would regret choices leading to negative outcomes, and how satisfied they imagined they would be with choices having positive outcomes. Participants were also asked to rate how much responsibility (guilt, credit) they expected the decision makers to feel in relation to each outcome. As a further check of the hypothesized association between intuitive decisions and personal involvement, we included in the present study ratings of self-esteem as an additional dependent variable. Finally, the participants were asked to indicate how certain they were that the decision maker, after failing or succeeding, would choose the same approach (intuitive or non-intuitive) next time in a similar choice situation.
The dependent variables in Study 2 were, accordingly, satisfaction, regret, responsibility (following imagined good or bad choice outcomes), the extent to which the outcome would affect (increase or decrease) the decision maker's self-esteem, and the likelihood of the decision maker choosing the same approach next time. We used 7-points Likert-type scales for all the dependent variables, bar next time, for which we used a 100% certainty scale.
The mean ratings of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices are presented in Tables 1 and 2. As can be observed in the tables (first row in each scenario), the participants anticipated that a decision maker ending up with a positive outcome from an intuitive choice would be markedly more satisfied than a decision maker achieving the same positive outcome from a non-intuitive choice. Similarly, the tables (second row in each scenario) show that the participants anticipated that a decision maker obtaining a negative outcome from an intuitive choice would regret more their choice than a decision maker obtaining the same negative outcome as a result of choosing the non-intuitive alternative.
TABLE 1. Mean ratings of satisfaction (positive outcomes), regret (negative outcomes), responsibility, self-esteem, and "next time" in the "Ordering of goods" scenario, Study 2.
TABLE 2. Mean ratings of satisfaction (positive outcomes), regret (negative outcomes), responsibility, self-esteem, and "next time" in the "Hiring employee" scenario, Study 2.
As in Study 1, the participants attributed more responsibility (credit) to a decision maker for a positive outcome obtained through an intuitive choice than for the same positive outcome following a non-intuitive choice. Similarly, negative outcomes following an intuitive choice generated more responsibility (blame) than the same outcomes following a non-intuitive choice (Tables 1, 2, third row). As can be observed in the tables, the patterns of results are similar in between-subjects and within-subjects comparisons. Most of the differences are significant at a 0.001 level in both designs.
Tables 1 and 2 (fourth row) show that the participants in both scenarios anticipated that the decision maker's self-esteem would be markedly more improved following a successful intuitive choice than after an equally successful non-intuitive choice. The participants also assumed that negative outcomes would be slightly more detrimental for the self-esteem of the intuitive decision maker than for the non-intuitive decision maker.
As Tables 1 and 2 (fifth row) show, the participants anticipated that it was far less certain that the decision maker would choose the same kind of option (intuitive or non-intuitive) next time if they had failed after making an intuitive choice than if they had failed after making a non-intuitive choice. Regarding successes, no significant differences were found.
Both scenarios showed that choosing the intuitive option was expected to lead to markedly stronger emotions, more regret following negative outcomes, and, in particular, more satisfaction with positive outcomes. We also found that the participants anticipated that choosing the intuitive versus the non-intuitive option would lead to markedly stronger feelings of responsibility for both positive and negative outcomes. All these effects were significant with both designs in both scenarios, although somewhat stronger, as expected from previous studies (e.g., Charnes et al., 2012), for within-subjects than for between-subjects comparisons.
The findings from the scenario studies—in particular, the findings of Study 2 in which participants were predicting other decision makers' feelings—clearly support our original hypothesis. However, these findings primarily tap into participants' beliefs about their own and others' emotional responses to hypothetical choices. We also wanted to explore our hypothesis with respect to real-life decisions that the participants themselves had made. We therefore performed two autobiographical studies (Study 3 and 4) in which the participants— psychology students in Study 3 and experienced engineers in Study 4—were asked to describe examples of choice conflicts between intuitive and non-intuitive options from their own lives.
In Study 3, the participants were undergraduate psychology students at the University of Oslo (N = 88; male = 13, female = 75; Mage = 26.49 years, SD = 5.83), who volunteered to take part in the study.
The students were asked to write down an instance of a choice conflict between an intuitive option and a non-intuitive alternative from their private lives, and to indicate which option they had chosen. They were then asked to rate (on 9-point Likert-type scales) how certain they had been of making the correct choice just after the choice was made, how negative/positive they now considered the outcome of the choice to be, to what extent they regretted their choice, how satisfied/dissatisfied they were with the outcome, how responsible they felt for the outcome of their choice (in retrospect), and how responsible they considered others to be.
The participants described a wide range of choices: choice of partner, choice of holiday destination, choice of university, etc. A non-significant majority of the participants (56.8%; p = 0.241, 2-tailed, binomial test) reported an intuitive choice; that is, a choice where they had (finally) decided in favor of the intuitively appealing option. The mean ratings of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3. Mean ratings (scale 1–9) of chosen option after a choice conflict between intuitive and non-intuitive options, Study 3—Students.
When the students were asked how certain they had been in making the correct choice just after the choice was made, those who had chosen the intuitive option reported a significantly higher certainty than those who had chosen the non-intuitive alternative (Table 3, first row). Table 3 further shows that those who had made an intuitive choice considered the outcome (i.e., the consequences) of the choice as more positive than those who had chosen the non-intuitive alternative, and they were in retrospect much more satisfied with their choice than those who reported a non-intuitive choice.
The students who had chosen the intuitive alternative reported somewhat higher responsibility for the choice than those who had chosen the non-intuitive (analytic) alternative. They also attributed less responsibility to others. However, none of these differences were significant.
Our finding that the students who had chosen the intuitive alternative reported that they were more certain that they had made the correct choice than those who had chosen the non-intuitive alternative is in accordance with Simmons and Nelson's (2006) "intuitive bias hypothesis," which posits that, "because intuitions are often held with high confidence, people will choose intuitive options more frequently than equally valid non-intuitive options" (p. 411). This hypothesis implies a tendency of people to be more certain about intuitive than non-intuitive, analytic choices.
Since those who had reported a non-intuitive choice in retrospect were less satisfied with their choice, they, not surprisingly, also regretted more their choice. We interpret the finding that the participants were markedly more satisfied with their intuitive choices as being due to a higher degree of personal involvement in intuitive than in non-intuitive choices. We also consider the tendency to attribute somewhat less responsibility to others after making an intuitive choice as being in support of this interpretation (see also the section "General Discussion" below).
In sum, the findings of this study are compatible with those from Study 2.
The choices the young psychology students came up with in Study 3 were mostly choices from their personal lives. In Study 4, we performed the same study on experienced engineers, professionals who, in their work, are associated with an analytical approach and hence might be expected to make fewer intuitive choices than psychology students.
The participants were employees in a Norwegian engineering company (N = 99; male = 86, female = 13; Mage = 46.33 years, SD = 9.8) who volunteered to answer a web-based questionnaire about work-related decisions. They were first asked to describe briefly a choice conflict between an intuitive option and a non-intuitive alternative from their own professional life, as follows:
"You have probably experienced having the choice between two alternatives where objective facts and analytic reasoning support one of the options and your intuition or gut feeling tell you to choose the other […] Please recall and describe one example of such a choice dilemma."
They then were asked the same questions as the students in Study 3, starting with which option they had chosen. Subsequently, they were asked to rate (this time on 7-point Likert-type scales) how certain they had been about making the correct choice, how negative/positive they now considered the outcome of the choice, the extent to which they regretted their choice, how satisfied/dissatisfied they were with the outcome, how responsible they felt for the outcome of their choice, and how responsible they considered others to have been for the final outcome.
The engineers came up with a wide range of choices within their professional context: accept or decline a new position (as leader) in the company; employ a person of foreign origin or a native Norwegian; choose a more expensive, well-known subcontractor or a much cheaper newcomer, etc. A significant majority (61.6%, p = 0.027, 2-tailed, binomial) of the engineers who had experienced a conflict between an intuitive option and a non-intuitive option ended up choosing the intuitive option. Mean ratings of intuitive versus non-intuitive choices are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Mean ratings (scale 1–7) of chosen option after a choice conflict between intuitive and non-intuitive options, Study 4—Engineers.
In the two retrospective studies (Study 3 and Study 4) combined, a significant majority of the 187 participants (59.4%, p = 0.013, 2-tailed, binomial test) reported choices from their own lives for which they had chosen the intuitive option.
The ratings of the experienced engineers in Study 4 replicate the trends found within the students' responses in Study 3. The intuitive option was chosen with somewhat higher certainty, and the outcomes (consequences) of intuitive choices were perceived to be markedly more positive than the outcomes of non-intuitive choices. In accordance with this last finding, those who reported an intuitive choice were in retrospect also much more satisfied with their choice than those who had chosen the non-intuitive alternative. Probably because the engineers who had reported a non-intuitive choice in retrospect were less satisfied with their choice, they also regretted it more.
Engineers who had chosen the intuitive alternative felt in retrospect that they had a slightly higher, but not significantly different, responsibility for the choice, compared to those who had chosen the non-intuitive alternative. However, they rated others' responsibility to be considerably less. Overall, the findings from both autobiographical studies go in the same direction as the very clear findings from the scenario studies (Study 1 and Study 2). In all the studies, the participants show a tendency to report stronger emotions in relation to the outcomes of intuitive choices than in respect of the outcomes of non-intuitive choices—in particular, more satisfaction following positive outcomes.
However, not all differences were significant. The somewhat mixed findings from the retrospective studies may be due to the large variability of the types of choice reported. The participants in these studies distinguished for themselves between the intuitive and the non-intuitive alternative, and their distinctions did not always make sense to us. It seems that some of them may have misunderstood how we in the studies described a conflict between an intuitive and a non-intuitive option.
In the scenario study in which the participants themselves were asked to make a choice between an intuitive option and a non-intuitive alternative (Study 1), we found that there was a significant tendency in the three concrete scenarios toward choosing the intuitive option. In the two retrospective studies a significant majority reported choices from their own lives for which they had chosen the intuitive option. Thus, the present studies' results indicate a propensity of people to favor intuitive options in decision making.
In the scenario studies, the intuitive option was found to lead to stronger emotions—in particular, to more satisfaction in the case of a positive outcome. Furthermore, results from the retrospective studies point us toward the same inference. In fact, the findings from all four studies indicate that intuitive choices are associated with intensified emotional experiences—but why might this be so?
Decision Makers Feel More Personally Involved in Intuitive Choices
Our findings clearly suggest that intuitive choices give a stronger feeling of responsibility for the outcome than non-intuitive choices. Decision makers who end up with a positive or a negative outcome after choosing the intuitive option are, in the studies, consistently anticipated to experience stronger feelings of responsibility (credit or guilt) than decision makers who obtain the same outcome after choosing the non-intuitive alternative.
The relationship between responsibility and agency has long been recognized. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) postulated more than 2,000 years ago that we acquire the idea that we are causal agents through observing that human beings, including ourselves, are praised and blamed for their actions (e.g., Frith, 2013). More recently, the relationship between agency and responsibility has been explored experimentally (e.g., Woolfolk et al., 2006; Nordbye and Teigen, 2014). For example, Woolfolk et al. (2006) found that, the more an actor is identified with an action, the more appropriate people find it that responsibility should be assigned to that actor.
In our studies, we did not ask the participants explicitly to assess a decision maker's degree of personal involvement or experienced self-agency. However, the differences in responsibility assessments indicate that, consistent with Epicurus' past insight, intuitive decision makers are believed to be more personally involved in their decisions than non-intuitive decision makers.
In Study 2, the participants anticipated that, in both scenarios, decision makers who were successful after choosing the intuitive option would experience markedly increased self-esteem compared to those who were successful after choosing the non-intuitive alternative. Similarly, the participants anticipated that decision makers who ended up with negative outcomes after choosing the intuitive option would experience less self-esteem than those who ended up with the same negative outcome after choosing the non-intuitive alternative. These differences in predicted self-esteem also suggest that decision makers are considered to be more personally involved in their intuitive than in their non-intuitive choices.
In the two autobiographical studies (Study 3 and Study 4), the participants judged in retrospect the outcomes of their intuitive choices as more positive than the outcomes of their non-intuitive ones, suggesting that they were personally more involved in their intuitive than in their non-intuitive choices.
Altogether, the above findings indicate that intuitive choices increase the feeling of personal involvement more than non-intuitive choices do.
Personal Involvement Mediates Increased Emotional Experience
Inferring that choosing an intuitive option seems to intensify the (anticipated) emotions associated with the choice outcomes, as well as increase the decision maker's personal involvement, we might then consider whether the stronger personal involvement gives rise to stronger emotional experiences, or vice versa? According to Chambon and Haggard's (2012) findings, it seems reasonable to assume that a strengthened experience of personal involvement is a consequence of selecting the intuitive option. This experience thus precedes the emotional reactions in the choice outcomes. So, the increased personal involvement following an intuitive versus a non-intuitive choice may well mediate the stronger emotions in the choice outcomes of intuitive choices. Of course, the effect may go the other way as well, and stronger emotions could, in turn, contribute to a further increase in the feeling of personal involvement in intuitive versus non-intuitive choices.
Intensified Positive Emotions Reinforce Intuition Bias
The present studies clearly support our hypothesis that people are more emotionally affected by the outcomes of intuitive choices than by those of non-intuitive choices. However, do these intensified feelings following intuitive choices also contribute to people's exaggerated tendency to go with their gut, reinforcing intuition bias?
We noted above that one conventional explanation for intuition bias focuses on the nature of people's expected negative counterfactual thoughts if their decisions were to turn out badly (e.g., Risen and Gilovich, 2008). However, the present data indicate that intuitive choices intensify anticipated positive emotions after successful outcomes more than anticipated negative emotions after failures. This anticipation is in accordance with studies showing that increased fluency, in fact, triggers positive affect in the choice outcomes (e.g., Reber et al., 2004; Topolinski and Strack, 2009).
We know from prior research that people expect their choices to have positive rather than negative outcomes (e.g., Bracha and Brown, 2012). In fact, that is why people make the choices they do. If they had believed a choice would turn out badly, they would have selected a different option. So, since the increment from positive outcomes is greater than the decrement for negative outcomes, and positive outcomes are more commonly expected, anticipated positive emotions should play a more important role for decision making than anticipated negative emotions.
It has been affirmed that "the experience of self-agency is fundamental to human self-perception" (Aarts et al., 2009, p. 967). An increased feeling of self-agency and personal involvement following intuitive choices should then, in themselves, reinforce people's tendency to go with their gut, on top of the anticipation of intensified emotions in respect of the commonly expected positive outcomes.
Accordingly, we find it plausible that the increased feeling of personal involvement following intuitive choices and the intensified emotions associated with the positive outcomes of such choices contribute to people's tendency to prefer intuitively appealing over equally valid non-intuitive options.
However, we also found (in Study 2) that intuitive decision makers who were informed that their intuitive choice had led to a negative outcome, were to a lesser extent expected to choose the same kind of option next time, compared to those who were informed that their choice of a non-intuitive option had led to a negative outcome. This finding indicates that people are more willing to learn from their failed intuitive choices than from their failed non-intuitive choices, which in turn may moderate somewhat the tendency to go with one's gut in decision making.
Limitations and Further Studies
A limitation with scenario studies like those reported here is that how one believes that oneself (Study 1) and others (Study 2) will feel, can be different from how oneself and others will, in fact, react and feel in real situations. This limitation was partly the motivation for the retrospective studies, where we asked the participants to come up with choice conflicts they themselves had experienced. However, even retrospective studies can only measure thoughts and feelings viewed from a distance. This limitation is particularly obvious for the study of emotions (e.g., Frijda and Zeelenberg, 2001). Our studies should therefore be followed up by studies of real life decision making.
One particular weakness with our studies is that we did not measure the duration of the decision process for "intuitive" versus "non-intuitive" options. We assumed (and explained to the participants) that intuitive choices are immediate, and decision latencies accordingly much shorter than those determined by an analytic process. In contrast to scenario and retrospective studies, one can in studies of real life decision making easily measure reaction times and in that way control for this conjecture. We suggest that in particular one finding should be examined further in real life decision making situations, namely responsibility and personal involvement, which both in Study 1 and 2 were rated higher for intuitive choices. This finding was supported by the findings from the retrospective studies. It may, however, be objected that time and effort spent on a real life decision task might also increase involvement and responsibility and thus reduce the differences we found between deliberative and intuitive choices.
Several explanations, well supported by empirical evidence, have been advanced regarding the exaggerated tendency of individuals to follow their intuitions. Our findings indicate an additional potential reason for this tendency, based on the different experiences associated with the outcomes of intuitive and non-intuitive choices. People seem to be more personally involved in their intuitive choices, and experience more intensified emotions—particularly in relation to the positive outcomes of such choices. We conclude that the increased feeling of personal involvement following intuitive choices, and the markedly intensified emotions, actual and anticipated, in the positive outcomes of them, constitute another, so far overlooked, reason for intuition bias.
The research project was approved by Department of Psychology's (University of Oslo) Research Ethics Committee (ref number 1088630). All the questionnaires started with an informed consent form that the participants had to tick off before proceeding to the questionnaire. No person-identifiable information was recorded.
GK and GN worked together on all parts of the study. GK as main author conceived the idea behind the study and performed the initial literature research.
The study was funded in part by an internal grant from the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo.
The authors would like to thank Karl Halvor Teigen for helpful advice and valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Aarts, H., Custers, R., and Marien, H. (2009). Priming and authorship ascription: when nonconscious goals turn into conscious experiences of self-agency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 967–979. doi: 10.1037/a0015000
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., and Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 569–576. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
Bracha, A., and Brown, D. J. (2012). Affective decision making: a theory of optimism bias. Games Econ. Behav. 75, 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2011.11.004
Chaiken, S., and Trope, Y. (eds) (1999). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chambon, V., and Haggard, P. (2012). Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition 125, 441–451. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.011
Charnes, G., Gneezy, U., and Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009
Dane, E., Rockman, K. W., and Pratt, M. G. (2012). When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 119, 187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.009
Epley, N., and Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: why adjustments are insufficient. Psychol. Sci. 17, 311–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x
Evans, J. S. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 454–459. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Frijda, N. H., and Zeelenberg, M. (2001). "Appraisal: What is the dependent?," in Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, eds K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, and T. Johnstone (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 141–155.
Frith, C. (2013). The psychology of volition. Exp. Brain Res. 229, 289–299. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3407-6
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York, NY: Penguin.
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., and Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 17, 753–770. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1987.6499282
Hogarth, R. M. (2005). "Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought," in The Routines of Decision Making, eds T. Betsch and S. Haberstroh (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–82.
Hogarth, R. M. (2010). Intuition: a challenge for psychological research on decision making. Psychol. Inq. 21, 338–353. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.520260
Inbar, Y., Cone, J., and Gilovich, T. (2010). People's intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 232–247. doi: 10.1037/a0020215
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Keren, G., and Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one. A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 533–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
Keys, D. J., and Schwartz, B. (2007). "Leaky" rationality: how research on behavioral decision making challenges normative standards of rationality. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2, 162–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00035.x
Kirkebøen, G., Vasaasen, E., and Teigen, K. H. (2013). Revisions and regret: the cost of changing your mind. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26, 1–12. doi: 10.1002/bdm.756
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., and Miller, D. T. (2005). Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 725–735. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.725
Moore, J., and Haggard, P. (2008). Awareness of action: inference and prediction. Conscious. Cogn. 17, 136–144. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.12.004
Nordbye, G. H., and Teigen, K. H. (2014). Being responsible versus acting responsibly: effects of agency and risk taking on responsibility judgments. Scand. J. Psychol. 55, 102–114. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12111
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., and Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Risen, J. L., and Gilovich, T. (2008). Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 293–307. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293
Simmons, J. P., and Nelson, L. D. (2006). Intuitive confidence: choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 135, 409–428. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.409
Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 645–665. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Topolinski, S., and Strack, F. (2009). The architecture of intuition: fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138, 39–63. doi: 10.1037/a0014678
Wilson, T. D., and Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 181–192. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181
Woolfolk, R. L., Doris, J. M., and Darley, J. M. (2006). Identification, situational constraint, and social cognition: studies in the attribution of moral responsibility. Cognition 100, 283–301. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.002
Keywords: decisions, intuition, biases, emotional consequences, personal involvement, responsibility
Citation: Kirkebøen G and Nordbye GHH (2017) Intuitive Choices Lead to Intensified Positive Emotions: An Overlooked Reason for "Intuition Bias"? Front. Psychol. 8:1942. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01942
Received: 22 May 2017; Accepted: 20 October 2017;
Mark Nieuwenstein, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Carina Remmers, Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Germany
Stephan Dickert, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2017 Kirkebøen and Nordbye. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Geir Kirkebøen, geir.kirkeboen@psykologi.uio.no


Carefully cut each breast in half making 8 pieces. Gently pound each piece until a little flat but not thin. Sauté bacon and onion in butter until onion is transparent. Add drained asparagus, salt and pepper, remove from heat and allow to cool.
Cut pocket in each chicken breast and fill with asparagus mixture. Coat chicken breasts lightly with flour. Coat with egg and milk mixture and coat with breadcrumbs.
Heat extra butter in large frying pan. Add chicken and cook until golden brown on both sides and cooked through, about 3 minutes on each side. Serve immediately with parsley butter.
Beat butter until smooth and creamy. Add parsley, shallots, and salt and pepper. Beat well.
Spoon mixture into a rough log shape about a quarter the way down a sheet of greaseproof paper. Fold paper over and push against the butter so that the mixture forms a smooth roll. Roll in greaseproof paper and refrigerate until firm. Cut into slices.


text:
Researchers crack on with low-cost Covid-19 vaccine from chicken eggs
Manufacturers could soon produce over a billion doses of vaccines made using chicken eggs.
A new Covid-19 vaccine created with a new molecular formula that includes the use of chicken eggs has entered clinical trials, The New York Times reported.
The NDV-HXP-S vaccine, currently being is studied and tested in Brazil, Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam, is said to ensure more antibodies than current authorised vaccinations around the world.
Experts believe the new combination could be less complex and far easier to produce if proved to be effective against the novel coronavirus. This is in contrast to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines which are produced in specialised factories using hard-to-acquire ingredients.
However, the new NDV-HXP-S vaccine "can be mass-produced in chicken eggs — the same eggs that produce billions of influenza vaccines every year in factories around the world," the NYT report said on Monday.
This will allow low- and middle-income countries that have yet to acquire the more expensive vaccines to obtain the potentially life saving jab at a lower cost.
Dr. Bruce Innis from PATH Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access, which coordinated the development of NDV-HXP-S, described it as "a world-class vaccine" that could be mass produced to introduce more than one billion doses annually.
🧠 A recent study found that mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are common between Covid-19 survivors, leading to concerns over a more long-term impact of the global health crisis. Read more 👇 https://t.co/man91qlteu
— Doha News (@dohanews) April 7, 2021
"That's staggering — it would be a game-changer," said Andrea Taylor, assistant director of the Duke Global Health Innovation Center.
The first phase of clinical trials will conclude in July. However, the final phase will take months to determine the potency of the vaccine.
Vaccines work by introducing a new virus to the body to allow the immune system to respond by creating antibodies to attack it. After exposing the virus to the body, the immune cells learn to detect infected cells and kill them.
"Some vaccines contain entire viruses that have been killed; others contain just a single protein from the virus. Still, others contain genetic instructions that our cells can use to make the viral protein," the NYT report added.
Read also: Was Covid-19 transmitted by animals? WHO probe reveals findings
In the case of the Covid-19, the best way to destroy the virus is by targeting the protein that protects it like a shield. "The protein, known as a spike, latches onto cells and then allows the virus to fuse to them."
However, studies on the coronavirus show that injecting the virus's spike proteins into the body is not the best way to form immunity against it. "That is because spike proteins sometimes assume the wrong shape, and prompt the immune system to make the wrong antibodies," the report added.
This was concluded by a group of researchers long before the pandemic erupted. In 2015, another coronavirus emerged, causing a deadly form of pneumonia called MERS. Jason McLellan, a structural biologist then at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and his colleagues, set out to make a vaccine against it.
"They wanted to use the spike protein as a target. But they had to reckon with the fact that the spike protein is a shape-shifter," the report explained.
The researchers discovered that antibodies work against only one of the two shapes of the spike protein.
After multiple trials, they came up with the right combination to create the vaccine— a spike called 2P— and tested it on mice to then find out that animals could easily resist the MERS coronavirus.
"The team filed a patent for its modified spike, but the world took little notice of the invention. MERS, although deadly, is not very contagious and proved to be a relatively minor threat; fewer than 1,000 people have died of MERS since it first emerged in humans," The New York Times mentioned.
However, in early 2020, a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged and began quickly spreading among people and across nations.
Moderna was the first to rush and use McLellan and his colleagues' discovery to design a vaccine for Covid-19.
Other giant pharmaceutical companies soon followed suit, adopting the same technique for their own vaccine formulas. All three vaccines authorised in the United States to date — Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech – applied the 2P spike.
'Genius'
McLellan's lifesaving discovery in the structure of proteins earned him major respect and fame in the vaccine world, especially since the emergence of the current global health crisis.
"This guy is a genius," said Harry Kleanthous, a senior program officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. "He should be proud of this huge thing he's done for humanity."
In March, McLellan collaborated with two fellow University of Texas biologists, Ilya Finkelstein and Jennifer Maynard; a team of researchers then created a single protein containing the two prolines in the 2P spike, plus four additional prolines found elsewhere in the protein.
The new spike, which boasted six prolines, was aptly named HexaPro and has proven to be more stable and resilient than 2P.
"It made sense to try to have a better vaccine," said McLellan, who is now an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
With the aim to reach more disadvantaged people around the world, the University of Texas set up a licensing arrangement for HexaPro allowing "companies and labs in 80 low- and middle-income countries to use the protein in their vaccines without paying royalties."
A little help from eggs
Authorised Covid-19 vaccines require expensive ingredients to create and roll out. However, influenza vaccines are somewhat cheaper due to the use of chicken eggs. Many factories make flu shots with influenza viruses injected into the eggs, which produce new copies of the diseases that are then extracted, weakened and put into vaccines.
Scientists at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai experimented with a bird virus called Newcastle disease virus to create vaccines. "To develop an Ebola vaccine, for example, researchers added an Ebola gene to the Newcastle disease virus's own set of genes," the report said.
They inserted the discovered virus into chicken eggs and because it is a bird virus, it quickly multiplied. The researchers therefore found themselves with Newcastle disease viruses coated with Ebola proteins.
After the discovery, the researchers set their eyes on the coronavirus spike protein and added HexaPro to the Newcastle disease viruses. NDV-HXP-S was the result.
Thousands of doses of NDV-HXP-S were then ordered to be produced in a Vietnamese factory. Months later, the the factory, which usually makes influenza vaccines in chicken eggs, sent the vaccines to New York to be tested,.
Due to its efficacy researchers needed fewer viruses for an effective dose. "A single egg may yield five to 10 doses of NDV-HXP-S, compared to one or two doses of influenza vaccines."
Read also: How your age impacts Covid-19 vaccine side effects
Vietnam's Institute of Vaccines and Medical Biologicals announced the start of clinical trials of NDV-HXP-S on March 15 and within weeks, Thailand and Brazil followed suit.
Mexico's vaccine-maker Avi-Mex is also due to start clinical trials on vaccines in the form of intranasal spray.
Meanwhile, McLellan is seeking to create a third version of the spike that is expected to be better than HexaPro.
"There's really no end to this process," he said. "The number of permutations is almost infinite. At some point, you'd have to say, 'This is the next generation.'"
Pregnant during Ramadan? Here is what you should know before fasting
Could the pandemic lead to a wave of neuro and mental health issues?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
October – November 2013 Oct – Nov 2013
A Tribute to the George Shearing Quintet @ Westin La Paloma Resort & Spa
Oct 28 @ 2:00 am
A "Tribute to the George Shearing Quintet" was originally a one time gig, done as a tribute to George Shearing and the Quintet, which performed in the early 1950s through the 1980s. The Shearing sound is the feature of the group; with piano, vibes, and guitar playing the melody in unison. Two members of the group, Charlie Shoemake-vibes, and Colin Bailey-drums are former members of the George Shearing Quintet. The other members of the Quintet are Joe Bagg-piano, Frank Potenza-guitar, and Luther Hughes-bass.
The late Sir George Shearing was one of the world's most influential and beloved jazz pianists and composers. Shearing was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in June 2007. A popular recording artist and concert performer, Shearing composed over 300 songs including the Jazz standard, "Lullaby of Birdland."
Shearing was born in 1919 in the Battersea area of London. Congenitally blind, he was the youngest of nine children. His father delivered coal and his mother cleaned trains at night after caring for the children during the day. His only formal musical education consisted of four years of study at the Linden Lodge School for the Blind. While his talent won him a number of university scholarships, he was forced to refuse them in favor of a more financially productive pursuit…playing piano in a neighborhood pub for the handsome salary of $5 a week! Shearing joined an all-blind band in the 1930's. At that time he developed a friendship with the noted jazz critic and author, Leonard Feather. Through this contact, he made his first appearance on BBC radio.
In 1947, Mr. Shearing moved to America, where he spent two years establishing his fame on this side of the Atlantic. The Shearing Sound commanded national attention when, in 1949, he gathered a quintet to record "September in the Rain" for MGM. The record was an overnight success and sold 900,000 copies. His U.S. reputation was permanently established when he was booked into Birdland, the legendary jazz spot in New York. Since then, he has become one of the country's most popular performing and recording artist. In 1982 and 1983 he won Grammy Awards with recordings he made with Mel Torme. Mr. Shearing was the subject of an hour-long television documentary entitled "The Shearing Touch" presented on the Southbank Show with Melvyn Bragg on ITV in the UK.
Three presidents have invited Mr. Shearing to play at the White House.. Ford, Carter and Reagan. He performed at the Royal Command Performance for Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. He is a member of the Friars Club and the Lotos Club in New York and the Bohemian Club in San Francisco.
His awards and honors are many. In May 1975, he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Music from Westminster College in Salt Lake City. In May of 1994, Hamilton College in upstate New York awarded him another honorary doctorate in music. DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana presented him with an honorary doctorate of music on June 1, 2002. He received the prestigious Horatio Alger Award for Distinguished Americans in 1978 and a community recreational facility in Battersea, south London, was named the George Shearing Centre in his honor. In May of 1993, he was presented with the British equivalent of the Grammy…the Ivor Novello Award for Lifetime Achievement. In June of 1996, Mr. Shearing was included in the Queen's Birthday Honors List and on November 26, 1996 he was invested by Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his "service to music and Anglo-US relations." He was presented the first American Music Award by the National Arts Club, New York City, in March of 1998.
Categories: Classic Jazz Series
Pete Christlieb & John Allred: Big Band Extravaganza @ Westin La Paloma Resort & Spa
Nov 3 @ 2:00 am
Pete Christlieb is probably one the world's most famous anonymous tenor saxophonists. For years, he played jazz tenor in Doc Severinsen & the Tonight Show Band. His big, beefy sound and aggressive solos were heard mostly in brief snippets as the show came out of commercials, unfortunately denying the American public a chance to hear a very fine saxophonist improvise at length.
UA Studio Jazz Ensemble
John Allred is a brilliant trombone player who appears in jazz clubs, festivals and concerts worldwide. Allred is a regular with the band of Harry Connick Jr., and is featured soloist with the Woody Herman Orchestra under the direction of Frank Tiberi. He has performed and recorded with Clark Terry, Buddy DeFranco, Terrry Gibbs, Stan Getz, Bucky Pizzarelli, Rosemary Clooney, Al Cohn, Scott Hamilton, Ross Tompkins, Dick Hyman, Toshiko Akiyoshi and others
Pete and John will be joined by the UA Studio Jazz Ensemble directed by Jeff Haskell and Moisés Paiewonsky, and coming off of a highly successful 18 city tour of China this summer.
"Meet & Greet" ticket add-on $20.00 – an opportunity to meet the artists in an intimate setting (includes cocktail and hors-d'oeuvres)
Experience the Newly Renovated Westin La Paloma
Dance the night away and make it a weekend adventure with discounted room rates for this special event!
Click here to get your special rate now!


text:
package logbook.api;

import java.util.Map;

import javax.json.JsonObject;

import logbook.bean.Ship;
import logbook.bean.ShipCollection;
import logbook.bean.SlotItem;
import logbook.bean.SlotItemCollection;
import logbook.proxy.RequestMetaData;
import logbook.proxy.ResponseMetaData;

/**
 * /kcsapi/api_req_kaisou/powerup
 *
 */
@API("/kcsapi/api_req_kaisou/powerup")
public class ApiReqKaisouPowerup implements APIListenerSpi {

    @Override
    public void accept(JsonObject json, RequestMetaData req, ResponseMetaData res) {
        String apiIdItems = req.getParameter("api_id_items");
        if (apiIdItems != null) {
            for (String apiIdItem : apiIdItems.split(",")) {
                Integer shipId = Integer.valueOf(apiIdItem);
                // 艦娘を外す
                Ship ship = ShipCollection.get()
                        .getShipMap()
                        .remove(shipId);
                if (ship != null && !"0".equals(req.getParameter("api_slot_dest_flag"))) {
                    Map<Integer, SlotItem> itemMap = SlotItemCollection.get()
                            .getSlotitemMap();
                    // 持っている装備を廃棄する
                    for (Integer itemId : ship.getSlot()) {
                        itemMap.remove(itemId);
                    }
                    // 補強増設
                    itemMap.remove(ship.getSlotEx());
                }
            }
        }
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Heartbeat is a proprietary journal for healthcare professionals. Every month, we take a deep dive into one cardiology topic and share our collective insights with you. By providing this education, we're helping you stay one step ahead for the health of your patients.


text:
Общият кодекс за Пруските държави () е правен кодекс в Прусия от края на XVIII и първите години на XIX век, утвърден от крал Фридрих Вилхелм II.

Общият кодекс се опитва да въведе някои модерни идеи, като равенство пред закона, като в същото време запази традиционните съсловни привилегии. Той е масивен документ с около 19 хиляди члена, обхващащи въпроси на гражданското, наказателното, семейното, административното право и други области. Отменен е след началото на Пруските реформи през 1806 година.

Кодекси
Германски закони
Прусия

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


🙋♂ Need help in buying HPE 726903-B21 Smart Array P841/4GB FBWC 12Gb 4-ports Ext SAS Controller? Please contact us now.
The HPE Smart Array P841 Controller is a full height, PCIe3 x8, 12 Gb/s Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) RAID controller that provides enterprise-class storage performance, increased external scalability, and data protection for select HP ProLiant Gen9 rack and tower servers. It has 16 external physical links and delivers increased server uptime by providing advanced storage functionality, including online RAID level migration (between any RAID levels) with flash back write cache (FBWC), global online spare, and pre-failure warning. The Gen9 controllers support the HPE Smart Storage Battery that allows multiple Smart Array controllers to be supported, resulting in simple upgrade process.


We've recently welcomed our new Project Control Group Chair, Peter McManamon, to the Connections Project.
Recently-appointed Project Control Group (PCG) Chair Peter McManamon has been seeing first-hand how the project is delivering positive outcomes after taking up the role in June.
Mr McManamon has toured the project's 2017 $100 million Winter Works program with Project Director Frank Fisseler earlier this year.
He viewed several work sites, including channel remediation, pipeline and meter upgrade sites which are all part of this year's large program of works.
In the past three months, he's also been working closely with the PCG on strategic development to identify future opportunities for the project and ensure best outcomes and practices.
"I'm looking forward to getting involved in this regionally significant project at a critical stage. The accelerated rollout of the winter works and increasing focus on channel reconfiguration plans will deliver effective outcomes that will create more certainty for irrigators," Peter said.
Frank also explained some important changes to the project that are the result of the Reset Delivery Plan (RDP), approved last September by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments.
"We're really starting to see the results on the ground across the irrigation system: more work sites, better engagement with landowners, and a real momentum building," he said.
Peter has over 35 years' national and international experience in infrastructure, environmental resources and the water industry in both public and private sectors. He brings a wealth of knowledge and a strong track record in the successful delivery of major projects requiring effective stakeholder and community engagement.
His local experience includes both technical and chief executive roles with Goulburn Valley Water, Grampians Water and GWM Water, which gives him a unique insight into urban, groundwater and rural water issues in regional Victoria.
Opportunities for Peter to meet with project stakeholders and landowners will continue in coming months.


text:
<?php

/**
 * website attribute type
 *
 * @category    Ultimate
 * @package     Ultimate_ModuleCreator
 * @author      Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
 */
class Ultimate_ModuleCreator_Model_Attribute_Type_Website extends Ultimate_ModuleCreator_Model_Attribute_Type_Abstract
{
    /**
     * type code
     *
     * @var string
     */
    protected $_type        = 'website';

    /**
     * sql column ddl size
     *
     * @var string
     */
    protected $_sizeDdl     = 'null';

    /**
     * eav setup input
     *
     * @var string
     */
    protected $_setupInput 	= 'select';

    /**
     * get admin column options
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getAdminColumnOptions()
    {
        $options  = $this->getEol();
        $options .= $this->getPadding(4);
        $options .= "'type'=> 'website',".$this->getEol();
        return $options;
    }

    /**
     * get the type for the form
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getFormType()
    {
        return 'select';
    }

    /**
     * get text for rss
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getRssText()
    {
        $eol        = $this->getEol();
        $module     = $this->getModule()->getLowerModuleName();
        $namespace  = $this->getNamespace(true);
        $text       = $this->getPadding(3);
        $text      .= '$description .= \'<div>\''.$eol.$this->getPadding(4).'.Mage::helper(\'';
        $text      .= $namespace.'_'.$module;
        $text      .= '\')->__("';
        $text      .= $this->getAttribute()->getLabel();
        $text      .= '").\':'.$eol.$this->getPadding(4).'\'.(($item->get';
        $text      .= $this->getAttribute()->getMagicMethodCode();
        $text      .= '()) '.$eol.$this->getPadding(4).'? Mage::getModel(\'core/website\')->load($item->get';
        $text      .= $this->getAttribute()->getMagicMethodCode();
        $text      .= '())->getName():'.$eol.$this->getPadding(4).'Mage::helper(\'';
        $text      .= $namespace.'_'.$module;
        $text      .= '\')->__(\'None\')).'.$eol.$this->getPadding(4).'\'</div>\';'.$this->getEol();
        return $text;
    }

    /**
     * get html for frontend
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getFrontendHtml()
    {
        $entityName = $this->getEntity()->getNameSingular(true);
        $module     = $this->getModule()->getLowerModuleName();
        $namespace  = $this->getNamespace(true);
        if ($this->getEntity()->getIsEav()) {
            $html  = '<?php echo Mage::helper(\'';
            $html .= $namespace.'_'.$module;
            $html .= '\')->__("';
            $html .= $this->getAttribute()->getLabel();
            $html .= '");?>:<?php echo $_';
            $html .= $this->getEntity()->getNameSingular(true);
            $html .= '->getAttributeText(\'';
            $html .= $this->getAttribute()->getCode().'\');?>'.$this->getEol();
            return $html;
        }
        $html  = '<?php echo Mage::helper(\'';
        $html .= $namespace.'_'.$module;
        $html .= '\')->__("';
        $html .= $this->getAttribute()->getLabel();
        $html .= '");?>:<?php echo ($_';
        $html .= $entityName.'->get'.$this->getAttribute()->getMagicMethodCode();
        $html .= '()) ? Mage::getModel(\'core/website\')->load($_';
        $html .= $entityName.'->get'.$this->getAttribute()->getMagicMethodCode();
        $html .= '())->getName():Mage::helper(\'';
        $html .= $namespace.'_'.$module;
        $html .= '\')->__(\'None\') ?>'.$this->getEol();
        return $html;
    }

    /**
     * get source for setup
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string|void
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getSetupSource()
    {
        $module     = $this->getModule()->getLowerModuleName();
        $namespace  = $this->getNamespace(true);
        return $namespace.'_'.$module.'/attribute_source_website';
    }

    /**
     * get admin from options
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getFormOptions()
    {
        $options  = parent::getFormOptions();
        $options .= $this->getPadding(3);
        $options .="'values'=> Mage::getResourceModel('core/website_collection')->toOptionArray(),";
        $options .= $this->getEol();
        return $options;
    }

    /**
     * get values for mass action
     *
     * @access public
     * @return string
     * @author Marius Strajeru <ultimate.module.creator@gmail.com>
     */
    public function getMassActionValues()
    {
        return 'Mage::getResourceModel(\'core/website_collection\')->toOptionArray()'.$this->getEol();
    }
}


Are happiness and success are becoming invisible in your life? Is everything you do is not turning favorable? Are you experiencing stress or depression or restlessness in your life? Then you may be under the shadow of black magic. Black magic refers to the practice of invoking demon spirits and evil forces through which the life of the person who is targeted can be destroyed. Black magic is one of the most dangerous things in anyone's life, as it affects various areas of our lives. Black magic does not mean sudden death, but it affects the mind, soul, and the body of the person causing a slow and steady death.
People may do black magic on any person when they cannot attain their self-goals and ambitions and will blame others for their failure. Out of jealousy or any such negative force, people may seek the help of the magic world. Such kind of people often forgets that they cannot remain untouched by the various consequences of black magic.
Who can save you from Black Magic Spells?
Shivaraj Guruji is one of the best black magic removal experts in Bangalore. With all the various remedies given by him, helps for black magic removal. Contact us o know more.
DisclaimerThe Astrology Services of Shiva Raj Guru Ji can help you in solving all your life problems. The results may vary from person to person. We are not claiming to offer 100% effectiveness of the solutions so offered. It is completely based on the complexity of the problem an individual is going through.
Copyright © 2019 Shiva Raj Guru Ji All Rights Reserved.


Prim and Propah: DailyLook.com, did I Like?
So if you saw my most recent outfit post (I Walk my Dog in Platforms), you might be wondering about the teal button down/button back blouse that I was wearing. Well, I picked that beauty up from DailyLook.com for a great deal. My introduction to DailyLook.com is another instance of Klout giving me a perk that I actually was happy to use. As an incentive to try out the site for the first time, Klout Influencers were given a $10 gift code to use towards a purchase. My first thought was "What the heck am I going to get for $10?" ... well, Dailylook.com has some really affordable looks; I was actually surprised the bang for your buck on this site.
How it works is there is a look (or two) every day, and the site gives you the opportunity to purchase that look from head to toe. From shoes and accessories to the actual clothing, you can purchase every piece. Like I said before, my initial thought was that it would be totally expensive to build an entire look and Pessimistic Patty over here didn't think Dailylook.com would be worth it. Well, I found a shirt that I really liked (and scored it for $14) and found a bunch of other things that I really wanted as well. Since I hadn't ordered anything from them before, I stuck with the one "test" shirt and waited for it to arrive. The shipping was affordable and the shirt came within days, despite the site saying it would more than likely be longer. The quality was not designer, but then I wasn't expecting it to be. Overall, I was really quite pleased with this new spin on outfit posts. I mean, users can upload their own looks and receive points towards credit, so it's an interesting way to shop and won't cost an arm and a leg. Plus, I am always game for building points toward something free, aren't you?
Follow DailyLook on Twitter or Like them on Facebook!
About DailyLook.com: DailyLook sends you one new fashion look on sale every day! Their stylists shop at fashion boutiques around the world looking for inspiration to put together the latest looks on a budget, just for you. The DailyLook includes the perfect top, bottom, shoes, bag and accessories to complete the look you'll love. They'll email you one new look every day and you can buy just the items that you like within 36 hours. Get the latest styled looks without spending designer prices. Shopping at DailyLook is fun, convenient, and easy.
NuNAAT Keratin Touch Giveaway Winner!


If you are graduating soon, there's a good chance you're overwhelmed by choosing your future career path. Often it seems to be an impossible thing to do, with all the pressure and wide range of options available in the world. You are not alone – almost everyone has struggles on which path to choose right out of college.
Choosing a career path is not as hard as it seems. Here are some useful tips to help you define which area will fit you best.
One of the best things you can do is to try to accurately define your abilities, talents, skills, experiences, and preferences. Do your preferences match your real skills? What are you really good at? What brings you joy? Ask your friends and family what they think would be good for you and write all it down for reference during your job search.
Many students assume they have to choose their final career right after graduation and feel very pressured. Statistics show that 91 percent of Millennials are expected to change their job every three years. Understanding that career choice won't handcuff you to a certain job will make the decision phase a little bit easier.
After you have thought out possible options and have written down your experience and best features, try taking a more serious approach. There are numerous tests and career quizzes with different questions and tasks available to help you. They will help you define your personality type, and more accurate career areas to enter after graduation.
It's time to analyze all of the options and highlight a few that seem to be the best fit for you to pursue. Determine 2-3 career options and start doing deeper research on each of them, such as read blogs, talk with insiders, review LinkedIn, etc.
Once you have laid out all of your options, it is time to see which options you can really see yourself pursuing. You should consider factors such as your personality type, salary, and lifestyle you'll have with any job that you decide to pursue. For instance, having your own business seems attractive, but if you have troubles with abstract thinking, and are afraid of taking risks, a well-paid and stable job at a corporation may be a better fit for you.
Once you have decided on a field you would like to look for a position in, it is time to begin your research. There are multiple online job board websites to help you search for open positions across the country.
And remember, your choice is not a do-or-die decision. You can always change your mind and decide on other option. Just make sure your dreams match the reality – and do your best!
This entry was posted in Career Blog and tagged Career on February 6, 2019 by PLS Logistics.


text:
Cannabis vs. Pills: Can Cannabis Help Solve the Opioid Addiction Problem?
D. Civantos - 17/09/2016
Dinafem Cannabis Seeds
Categories x
Cannabis activism
Cannabis Genetics
Growing techniques
Trimming techniques
Biological prevention
Indoor Growing
Outdoor Growing
Nutrients and fertilizers
Weed Recipes
US states that have legalised medical cannabis have seen a reduction in opioid abuse, both in the form of painkillers and drugs like heroin. And they could make use of the green plant to deal with the problems posed by these substances, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.
Could medical cannabis be the solution to preventing the devastating side effects often experienced by those taking prescription painkillers?
The problem in the US with opioids has reached alarming levels: in 2014, 18,893 deaths in the country were caused by overdoses related to prescription painkillers (three times more than in 2011), and 10,574 were related to heroin overdoses. Moreover, 1.9 million people have a usage problem associated with these drugs, and almost 600,000 have an opiate-related addiction resulting in augmented tolerance to these substances, impaired motor functions, and respiratory depression, which causes most of the deaths associated with it. It is estimated that up to 8% of patients who are prescribed narcotic analgesics to treat chronic pain become addicted to them, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Researchers have spent decades trying to separate the addictive properties of opiates, non-synthetic opioids, from their analgesic qualities, but the two seem to go hand in hand. Against this backdrop, marijuana may be one of the keys to address these alarming figures, despite the false belief that the cannabis plant constitutes an avenue towards other types of more dangerous consumption.
In fact, more than two decades ago the Medicine Division of the US National Academy of the Sciences issued a report stating that there was no conclusive evidence that marijuana was causally related to the subsequent use of other substances, discrediting the "gateway theory" that alleges that cannabis use is regularly a first step towards the consumption of hard drugs.
More recently, the Rand Corporation, an American think tank charged with training the country's Armed Forces, launched another study, which also concluded that marijuana did not lead to the consumption of more potent substances. "Although the 'gateway theory' has enjoyed widespread acceptance, scientists have always had their doubts. Our study shows that these doubts are justified," states the text.
How do these opioids work?
Our peripheral nerves, responsible for capturing pain signals, lead to the spine, where they connect with nerve cells that send messages to the central nervous system and brain neurons, which then perceive pain. This is where all opioids – from oxycodone to heroin to morphine– work their magic.
They do this by adhering to what is known as opioid receptors, on the points where nerve cells meet. Similarly, cannabis acts on the cannabinoid receptors of our endocannabinoid system.
In essence, this activates a switch that reduces the ability of these cells to receive signals. So, when nerve fibres on the periphery of the body send pain signals to the brain for processing, the neurons that normally would cause us to feel pain do not respond. Therefore, a small dose of an opioid (or cannabinoid) transforms the sensation of pain into something far more bearable.
Legalisation: a way to reduce opioid abuse
While marijuana use has increased among adults in the country of the stars and stripes in recent years, that of other substances has fallen dramatically. In various surveys amongst cannabis users in areas where the plant is legally accessible, users report having reduced their use of other products, such as alcohol and prescription opioids.
In 2014 a study published in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" also confirmed the survey data, asserting that the new legislation on medicinal marijuana has resulted directly in improved mortality rates with regards to opioid use. "The states with medical cannabis laws have opioid overdose mortality rates that are 24.8% lower than states without such legislation," the report explained.
In addition, other studies indicate that cannabis can play a very positive role in the recovery of addicts who are struggling with opioid addiction. A team of researchers at Columbia University published a study proving that patients who began smoking marijuana had less trouble sleeping, were less anxious and more likely to stay in treatment versus those who did not use the plant.
All this data support the arguments made by many cannabis advocates during legalisation campaigns in different states, who pointed out its efficacy in combating opioid problems. Activists, experts and lawyers believe that it is a safer option for many patients with chronic pain, such that it should be available. In fact, this has been one of the points that has contributed to the adoption of the new medical cannabis law in the State of Ohio. However, one of the State's representatives who supports the legislation warned about unrealistic expectations. "I don't think everyone is going to get off their drugs and start using medical marijuana," said Steve Huffman. "But I think it will be the most suitable solution for certain people."
A case in point is Joe Brumfield, who was 23 when he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy of the hips and shoulders, a degenerative disease that makes movement increasingly painful. To deal with the effects of his condition this artist from Baltimore was prescribed methadone, an opioid associated with the treatment of addictions that can be fatal if an improper dose is ingested.
He took the medication carefully, fearful of addiction and its associated risks, but soon began to look for an alternative. "I asked myself why I was putting my health at risk, along with my family, by taking this prescription medicine, if there was a natural and healthier alternative," he says. Cannabis was the option he chose. After years of personal use Brumfield explains that he has been able to control his symptoms and reduce the use of other substances considered dangerous. Now the approval of the law in Ohio sanctions cannabis consumption, allowing him to do so legally.
Although grass is not a definitive solution for addiction to opioids, as some cannabis users also use such substances, the legalisation of the sale of cannabis has improved abuse data in many states, and could to be key to fighting against a silent epidemic that kills tens of thousands every year in the United States. This is more good news for advocates of medical marijuana, both in the US and globally.
D. Civantos Professional journalist and blogger, I've, for more than a decade, been the head of Nexo Contenidos, a company specialized in the cannabis world and in wide-ranging digital media. You can find me not only on Dinafem, but also on Strambotic, Cooking Ideas and many other blogs floating in the uncharted waters of the net. However, when I feel most at ease is working with cannabis, one of my biggest passions from a very young age that has now become the main focus of my work.
Can marijuana lead to addiction?
Is cannabis addictive? This is the eternal debate, a widely discussed subject that is sometimes approached in the wrong way by both supporters a…
Differences between cannabis and hemp
Cannabis and hemp are two plants that often lead to confusion. Despite belonging to the same genus, their morphological differences and the…
Cannabis types and varieties
Today it's easy to feel lost when deciding what type of marijuana variety to grow. The countless number of strains available on the market …
Don't miss any posts!
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up-to-date with the latests cannabis news.
Kushka 06/01/2017
Ganja-yoga: the Perfect Combination of Yoga and Cannabis
Jose Carlos Bouso: "A medical cannabis program in Spain would be possible today"
D. Civantos 15/10/2016
Colorado Goes One Step Further: Cannabis Will Help Patients with PTSD
Dinafem Seeds 03/10/2016
How to prepare cannabis cream?
Comments from our readers
There are no comments yet. Would you like to be the first?
Your opinion about our seeds is very important to us and can help other users a lot (your email address won't be made public).
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor