DingoBorat
Slim
"I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again"I have mentioned this before but given the lack of traction that has attached to the OnSemi, Infineon and Microchip partnership reveals together with the consistent doubting of the Mercedes Benz partnership I will bring it up again:
Abstract
There is ample empirical evidence for an asymmetry in the way that adults use positive versus negative information to make sense of their world; specifically, across an array of psychological situations and tasks, adults display a negativity bias, or the propensity to attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information...
At a higher cognitive level, negative stimuli are hypothesized to carry greater informational value than positive stimuli, and to thus require greater attention and cognitive processing (seePeeters & Czapinski, 1990). Accordingly, adults spend more time looking at negative than at positive stimuli, perceive negative stimuli to be more complex than positive ones, and form more complex cognitive representations of negative than of positive stimuli (e.g.,
Ducette & Soucar, 1974;
Fiske, 1980;
H. Miller & Bieri, 1965).![]()
At a still more complex level of psychological functioning, the negativity bias has also repeatedly been revealed in adults' judgment and decision-making. When making judgments, people consistently weight the negative aspects of an event or stimulus more heavily than the positive aspects (Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; see
Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, for a review). This is also true of impression-formation: when given descriptions of a hypothetical person's moral and immoral behaviors, or adjectives describing the person's good and bad traits, subjects process and use the negative more than the positive information in arriving at a final impression of the person, even when the positive and negative information are equally intense (see
Abelson & Kanouse, 1966;
Fiske & Taylor, 1991;
Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; but see
Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Furthermore, people need less negative trait information to make trait inferences about others (
Aloise, 1993; see also
N. H. Anderson, 1965, and
Czapinski, 1988).![]()
There is also recent neuroscientific evidence for a negativity bias (e.g.,Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998;
Schupp et al., 2004). For example,
Ito, Larsen, et al. (1998) measured undergraduate students' event-related brain potentials (ERPs) as they showed them neutral pictures (as a kind of context) embedded with occasional positive or negative pictures (targets). The major ERP component of interest was a late positive potential (LPP), which is typically enhanced in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of neutral stimuli) as compared to evaluatively consistent targets (e.g., a positive stimulus embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli;
Cacioppo, Crites, & Gardner, 1996). As expected, Ito, Larsen, et al. found LPP enhancement in response to evaluatively inconsistent targets, both when targets were positive and when they were negative. Importantly, though, they found that the LPPs elicited by the negative pictures were significantly larger in amplitude than the LPPs elicited by the positive pictures despite the fact that both positive and negative pictures were equally probable, equally evaluatively extreme, and equally arousing. Similarly,
Crites, Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson's (1995) data, when re-examined by
Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1999), revealed larger-amplitude LPPs to negative stimuli embedded in a sequence of positive stimuli as compared to the reverse. Furthermore, even when subjects are not asked to explicitly evaluate the valence of stimuli, negative stimuli implicitly receive greater neural processing (as reflected in an enhanced LPP) than do positive stimuli"![]()
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652533/![]()
My opinion only DYOR
Fact Finder
It's evident that the BrainChip share price, won't gain traction on partnerships (unless it was with a Company like NVIDIA).
Also, the pressure of the LDA selling and general manipulation, is still outweighing genuine buying.
BrainChip, is not on people's radars anymore, at least not like it was, when it was often the most discussed stock on HC, with often the highest rated posts as well (often by you

I hate HC, but being here, does insulate us from a great deal of exposure, from other investors/speculators and BrainChip, would have never soared to the heights it did, without that medium, in my opinion.
It was a bit of a double edged sword.
In escaping from the negative part of that forum, we lost the benefit of wider exposure.
Which was fine, when we were naturally attracting strong attention.
Now, especially with how much has changed in the World, much of what is happening with BrainChip, is lost in the noise of everything else.
I think BrainChip and AKIDA, are hugely undervalued and there is much that will be caught up, with the right conditions.
I don't think anyone, is doubting the Mercedes partnership (or any others) unless they are ignorant of facts, but it is also a fact, that Future revenue from them, is not yet guaranteed.
I consider myself to be a positive thinking pessimistic optimist, with realist overtones and am confident of BrainChip's success, but for the share price to reflect this Future success, we need a "wake up" call, for the World.
I believe BrainChip, won't achieve a true reflection of its value, without World Wide interest, in our Company.
We got a taste of that, with the original Mercedes reveal.
Next time, it will be a full course meal in my opinion..
Last edited: