Peter Attia· MD
so they do this study and there's two different studies they did where they had people look at 800 different faces and the people had to deem whether the face was threatening or non-threatening to them
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.
so they do this study and there's two different studies they did where they had people look at 800 different faces and the people had to deem whether the face was threatening or non-threatening to them
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.
there's this concept in the book i talk about called prevalence-induced concept change and that's kind of a nerdy way of saying basically problem creep