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.
So we do that explicitly in the follow-up, where we have these discussions. Depending on what the situation is, you might encourage the person to kind of follow-up. It's really, the basics of it is, is supportive therapy. It's non-structured. It's use all the reflective listening, and the sort of the humanistic psychology thing, unconditional positive regard for the person.
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.