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.
I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that we each have our own unique abstraction algorithms so that indeed we can have consistent representation of real world experiences in symbols but that it's not going to be the same for everybody
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 brain creating abstractions of the outside world so if I were to take a photo of your face for instance and then show you that photograph you'd say yeah that's me but if I Were A Painter I might um you know swap some of the positions of of um components of your face and show it to you and you might say well that doesn't look like me and I'd say but that's my abstraction of your face so to me it makes sense because I understand the rules by which I made those swaps and moves there's some algor gorithms or rules that are are known to me so there's a s preservation of real world to the abstraction and that's really what our brain does all the time it attempts to Faithfully represent the the uh the world around us but it is indeed an abstraction