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 researchers do the exact same experiment, and they have done the exact same experiment, but they introduce a pharmacological blocker of epinephrine, so that epinephrine is released in response to the shock, but it cannot actually bind to its receptors and have all its biological effects, well then the animal is perfectly happy to tread back into the area where it received the shock.
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.
Condition place preference as with condition place avoidance depends on the release of adrenaline, right. It's not just about stress. It's about a heightened emotional state in the brain and body.
You can get one trial learning for positive events, condition place preference. And you can get one trial learning for negative events.