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.
Whereas in the other two groups that she called testosterone and estrogen, the director type and the nurturing somewhat follower type, there's an establishment of balance, but not in between two who individuals as a match, but rather on the whole in the relationship. One person is driving the novelty seeking in the course of decisions and actions, and the other person is essentially agreeing to those.
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.
So why are these categorizations and these averages interesting to me, at least interesting enough to convey to you? The reason they're interesting to me is, again, not because of their names, these molecules were not measured in these individuals, but that they once again bring us to the themes that we addressed before, which are the autonomic nervous system and whether or not it tends to be shifted more towards alertness in action or more towards a stable equilibrium or more towards calm, and whether or not individuals are selecting for people who have autonomic nervous systems that are more or less like theirs before they even meet, right?