Andrew Huberman· PhD
And those observations were that young males tended to have what are called auto acoustic emissions, more often than young females did.
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.
And those observations were that young males tended to have what are called auto acoustic emissions, more often than young females did.
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.
And it was an important discovery because it was one of the first discoveries that pointed to the fact that there are sex differences in biology that are independent of sex.
Well, but if Dennis puts you in a soundproof room and puts a very sensitive microphone in your ear, he'll he'll hear these pops. And uh and I I won't get into the acoustics of why that's a good thing, right? It helps you to focus on the sounds you want to hear, but what Dennis knew is there's a sex difference in how many of these oto acoustic emissions are being made. Girls make more and it's present at birth. So Dennis comes out with a strange study. I mean, who would do such a thing where he he proposes, well, since the sex difference is present at birth, it might reflect prenatal testosterone.