And doing it afterwards kind of, you know, it'slike, it's very cleverye,

that's a cool study, and not necessarily something you would predict. T unlike this

exactly, exactly. But

i guess it is. I mean, it seems like you could criticise what you're describing as going into a cloud with a microscope to prove that it's raining, you know, their emotions are activated. So what is that adding

to show amigdala activation there? I think it was actually adding like which which part of the brain is most implicated in consolidating those memories, or like, on incoding those memories. So so there, i think they weren't just using a midola as a measure of emotion, but rather, they were, as nero scientists, interested in which, which part of the brain is actually getting that memory to a til e i stored permanently. So they had like a genuine nero scientific interest in an, in a finding that we had had for already, probably 20 years, that emotions play a role in memory.

But it was just, yo, we need to have like, the best defender of narro science and narrow scientific approaches, and and see if, you know, they they can tell us what we're missing. Ye om of thus, yes,

sometimes i'll go to conferences like social psycoferences, and people will like, like te dellthe people who do social narow science, will be likmen, you're too hard on it, or whatever like and they'll actually argue with me. But they're never right. So, likey,

we need some i don't think they're going to be right, even the best one. But at least i'm sure there's something that we're being unfair about. There's something that wasing, we're not leaves no way that like our consant ie, just unrelenting contempt for this researchis is fully on

target.