Andrew Huberman· PhD
It's called the end-of-history illusion. So, this is work by Dan Gilbert. And basically what it says is we fully acknowledge that we've changed considerably in the past.
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.
It's called the end-of-history illusion. So, this is work by Dan Gilbert. And basically what it says is we fully acknowledge that we've changed considerably in the past.
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.
And that can lead us astray when it comes to thinking about how we will respond to change, because we forget that there's actually a lot of wiggle room around who we become.