The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if you look at the belief rating as a function of the estimate in the thalamus of what how much activation there was it's a it's a mess when you look at all the dots at once but if you just separate it out by high medium and low you run the statistics what you find is that there's a gradual increase but a legitimate one from low to medium to high
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.
the only statistical difference was between the low and the high