The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if a goal was too lofty, if it was too far from their current abilities, it didn't recruit enough systolic blood pressure. Even if people could get very excited about something mentally, it simply didn't place their body into a state of readiness because it wasn't tangible that they could actually perhaps really achieve it.
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.
if the goal is too easy, it's too within reach, it doesn't recruit enough of the autonomic nervous system to make pursuit of that goal, likely.
when goals were too easy for people to attain, they didn't get that increase in systolic blood pressure and recruitment of the other neural and vascular systems, meaning the blood systems and the nervous system that would place them into ongoing effort.
when goals were moderate, when they were just outside of one's immediate abilities or that one felt that yeah, that would take a lot of effort. But it's within range or maybe in range, like maybe I can do it, maybe I can't. Then there was a near doubling of the systolic blood pressure in the good sense. It didn't go into the unhealthy range and a doubling or more of the likelihood that they would engage in the ongoing pursuit of that particular goal.
Those moderate goals, not super easy, not super difficult, but moderately challenging goals seem to be the most effective in moving people towards their goals over the short and long term.