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.
the first few times that you are presented with a stimulus the amydala will respond and then it decays very quickly and then only if that stimulus predicts something important or something rewarding or or punishing then will it begin to respond again
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.
the way that amigdala works is its job is is to assign meaning to anything that could have motivational significance
if it's a brand new thing we're paying attention we're seeing if if it if it mattered did it matter and so I think anything that's novel even if we don't know what it means a loud sound you've never heard before um um even if it signifies nothing of motivational significance the first few times that you're presented with it you'll get an amigdalar response so you see this in the lab play the tone for the first time and then there's a response that rapidly decays when the tone doesn't end up predicting anything