Andrew Huberman· PhD
And it might be that a given neurochemical, even dopamine, is involved in both positively valanced arousal and negatively valanced arousal, that's why people think about these as different axes.
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.
And it might be that a given neurochemical, even dopamine, is involved in both positively valanced arousal and negatively valanced arousal, that's why people think about these as different axes.
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.
I would be reluctant to say that it's a chemical flip, I would say it's more likely to be a circuit flip.
And we were able to dissect this and show that although both of those forms of arousal required dopamine, they were exerted through completely separable neural circuits in the fly.