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.
you have that feeling of for the first 15 minutes this is terrible you know and then after like 15 or 20 minutes you sort of get into the groove I always assumed part of what's going on is it takes a while for your brain to really start marshalling okay so what semantic networks do we need to start activating here oh we don't need this let's inhibit this we're not doing that anymore it takes a while
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.
I think that that makes complete sense because it it's kind of like you're forging for apples in that tree that's you know on the middle of the serengetti somewhere right and there's nothing anywhere around you and so you're going to stick with that and just keep mining it until there's nothing left one of the reasons that I brought up this example was um I noticed that anything that has to do with attention whether not it's visual attention or you know needing to write or um or cognitive attention and redirecting attention unless there's some high level of as you call it arousal or emotionality I find there's always a kind of warm-up period required