Andrew Huberman· PhD
By changing the number of features that are in that loop, it disrupts the closed nature of that loop, it creates what we call an open loop, and in an open loop, you are better able to intervene.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
By changing the number of features that are in that loop, it disrupts the closed nature of that loop, it creates what we call an open loop, and in an open loop, you are better able to intervene.
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 first one is you start to link in time the execution of a bad behavior to this other good behavior. And in doing so, you start to recruit other neural circuits, other neurons, that can start to somewhat dismantle sequence of firing associated with the bad behavior.
But really what you're trying to do is you're trying to change the nature of the neural circuits that are firing so that you can rewrite the script for that bad habit.
This is the way in which you start to dismantle or, when I say dismantle, really weaken the likelihood that if neuron A fires, neuron B will fire.