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 they're holding it and holding it. And they think they only did 45 seconds. By the time they get to like second 40, 41, 42, they get past 45. They almost all quit, like 47, 48 seconds, because they wanted to beat their previous score but then were like, cool, I beat it. And then they quit early.
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 other group on the inverse side-- again, say they got a minute. We told them they got a minute and 15 seconds. They got to like 45 seconds, 50 seconds and started realizing, oh, man, I have 30 more seconds to go. And they quit way early because the carrot was way too far out. They realized I'm never going to get there. So I'm just going to stop now.
Can you guess which group did the best on the post-test? ANDREW HUBERMAN: The ones that were just within about 5% of.