Andrew Huberman· PhD
Is that right? - Yeah, exactly. And a great way of seeing that is this totally nutty biological factoid, which is the second to fourth digit ratio enhanced.
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.
Is that right? - Yeah, exactly. And a great way of seeing that is this totally nutty biological factoid, which is the second to fourth digit ratio enhanced.
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.
We now know that there are connections in the female brain that are simply missing in the male brain and these connections are from neurons that regulate sexual behavior. So we know that some circuits are missing in the male brain for sexual female sexual behavior.
Um, and early on in development, at embryionic stages in some species, um, like in humans, in in uterro, uh, when the, you know, when the woman's pregnant or in mice just at birth, perinatally, just after birth, um, these hormones generate what is thought to be an irreversible differentiation of the brain along a female or a male pathway.