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.
You might think, well, that just seems endlessly boring and simple, but this is actually the way that our fear systems work. Except unlike Pavlov's dogs, you don't need many, many pairings of a bell with some unconditioned stimulus in order to get a response. You can get what's called
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 in the context of so-called Pavlovian conditioning, these things have names like conditioned stimulus, and unconditional stimulus and responses. People often get these mixed up and it can be a little confusing, but I'm just going to make it really simple for you. The unconditioned stimulus is the thing that evokes a response unconditionally. So food is the unconditioned stimulus in the example I just gave. A foot shock or a loud bang would be the unconditioned stimulus in a... For instance say, an experiment geared toward exploring fear. That unconditioned stimulus is unconditional. It unconditionally evokes a startle or in the case of food salivating. The bell in the previous example is what we call the conditioned stimulus or the conditioning stimulus. Sometimes people mix these up. The condition stimulus is paired with the thing that naturally creates a response. And then eventually the condition stimulus creates the response itself.