Andrew Huberman· PhD
If subjects looked at something and took a mental photograph of that thing, it enhanced their visual memory of that thing significantly more than had they not taken a mental picture.
Loading…
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.
If subjects looked at something and took a mental photograph of that thing, it enhanced their visual memory of that thing significantly more than had they not taken a mental picture.
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.
Somehow the process of taking that photo, probably looking at it. You know, in a camera typically we'd say through the viewfinder or now because of digital cameras on the screen on the back of that camera, or on your phone, that framing up of the photograph stamps down a visual image in your mind that is more robust at serving a memory then had you just looked at that thing with your own eyes.
That framing up of the photograph stamps down a visual image in your mind that is more robust at serving a memory than had you just looked at that thing with your own eyes.