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 the other big challenge in understanding it is gigantic individual differences. And that's, when you talk about the optimal amount of stress, the counts of stimulation, and in general that stress that's not too severe and doesn't go on for too long and there is overall in a benevolence setting.
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 under those conditions, we love being stressed by something unexpected and out of control and predictability like a really interesting plot turn in the movie you're watching. That's great. But you get the individual differences that somehow has to accommodate the fact that for some people the perfect stimulatory amount of stress is like getting up early for an Audabon bird watching walk next Sunday morning. And for somebody else, it's signing up to be like a mercenary in Yemen.