post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Seth Herd · 2024-04-27T18:20:37.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is pretty fluffy. It didn't include any effect sizes or description of manipulations, let alone meta analysis that would make any of this reliable enough to take seriously. And while thinking hard hasn't been show to cost more metabolic energy, indont think the studies are good enough to prove it doesn't, either.

WSJ may not be a good place to get your neuroscience and psychology. I wouldn't know, it's paywalled.