Andrew Huberman· PhD
Being told you have really good or bad genes for (enter sport, endeavor etc) shapes the outcome in the direction you expect.
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.
Being told you have really good or bad genes for (enter sport, endeavor etc) shapes the outcome in the direction you expect.
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.
Um, and so they did that and they put people into these groups and then they they tested them after a few months and the people who they told were going to do better did better. And this was like something they could measure at the bi the biological level. They could measure specific molecules that had changed in that population of people um compared to the other group of people. Now the trick was that there was no difference genetically between these groups. It was just what they were told.