The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
But somehow in medieval times it was understood that spiking adrenaline or creating a robust emotional experience after an experience that one hoped a child would learn would encourage the child's nervous system, they didn't even know what a nervous system was, but would encourage the brain and body of that child to remember those particular events.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
for some people, adrenaline was increased 600 to 700%. So six to seven fold over baseline in the amount of circulating epinephrine or adrenaline.
I think we can confidently say based on the vast amount of animal and human research data that epinephrine, adrenaline, and some of the other chemicals that it acts with in concert is in fact the way that we remember particular events and not all events.