4 ms·
Hi, author here! Thanks for flagging. Despite the article being four years old—I'd like to think I've come a way in terms of better referencing reliable source
by tannerc 10y ago
Hi, author here! Thanks for flagging.
Despite the article being four years old—I'd like to think I've come a way in terms of better referencing reliable sources since then—there is evidence in the reference cited that speaks directly to the claim, but you would have to stretch yourself to uncover it. Or you could just Google it I guess.
e.g. the claim from the article: "Your [pre]frontal cortex happens to be a major dopamine hub...it's the hub for processing dopamine" is formed from the association of dopamine's function within the frontal lobe; namely, and from the source, how depletion of it has been identified as a major hinderance to abilities stemming from that area of the brain.
Of course the all-reliable (/s) Wikipedia also tells us: "The frontal lobe contains most of the dopamine-sensitive neurons in the cerebral cortex." Dopamine certainly plays a major part in that region of the brain, again a Google search yields enough on the subject to warrant a statement of the variety I originally made.
- joveian 10y agoI did notice it is an old article, however the citation is not correct and defending it makes me think you could still use some work in that area. The paragraph with the citation discusses the relative importance of dopamine to the frontal lobe vs. the rest of the brain. The article you cite does not address that, not even in a side comment as far as I can tell. Independent of the citation, I think it is misleading to call the whole frontal lobe (or even prefrontal cortex) a "hub" although reasonable to note the significance of dopamine there. The second sentence I consider factually incorrect considering the major role dopamine has in the striatum (also "processing dopamine" doesn't really describe what you are talking about). As tempting as it is, connecting brain structure and functioning to human experience is more likely to be misleading than accurate and particularly so the shorter the explanation is (no matter how well researched and explained). Making such claims in this type of article is misrepresenting scientific knowledge and I encourage you to avoid doing so (as popular as this is :( ).