We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Those labels define people no better than the numerical diagnoses in the psychiatric taxonomy book that we glorify. Labels are not understanding. Numbers are not understanding. They can help. Taxonomies are good. Sometimes labels let us categorize things, but labels are not a substitute for understanding. Numbers are not a substitute for understanding.
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.