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.
But dialogue is a two-way street. And it hit me while you were just saying what you were saying, I was paying very close attention. And I realized David Goggins is talking about the voice that comes up, including the terrible stuff that no one wants to hear about themselves from themselves. But then he's also got the dialogue down where he knows the counter voice. He goes, yeah, you're right. And so I'm going to do this.
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 think that you've mastered the process of internal dialogue. But when I say dialogue, I think most people think, oh, the inner voice, the chatter. But that's just one half of a dialogue. A dialogue is a two-way street.