Andrew Huberman· PhD
So in a way we can think of chess as one game, but actually chess is a kind of a substrate for exploring multiple roles for different characters.
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.
So in a way we can think of chess as one game, but actually chess is a kind of a substrate for exploring multiple roles for different characters.
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.
what it really points to is the fact that in a single game chess you have at least as I understand two players and those two players are moving pieces on the chess board for which each piece can do different things right can move in different ways under different scenarios but there are different rules for different pieces and so each player actually has to assume multiple identities during the same game and each of those identities has different rules and ways of interacting.