5 ms·

The author tries to argue that dopamine is not addictive by talking about how the absence of dopamine can affect critical bodily functions but never sufficientl

The author tries to argue that dopamine is not addictive by talking about how the absence of dopamine can affect critical bodily functions but never sufficiently disproves the well researched claim that dopamine when given in artificially large amounts, which is crucial point when talking about dopamine addiction, is indeed addictive. At best the author is making a technical distinction that for the most part is inconsequential.

conistonwater 6y ago
That is not at all the argument they are making, as far as I can tell.
smt88 6y ago
> At best the author is making a technical distinction that for the most part is inconsequential. I disagree. He explains why the technical distinction is important. His main point is this: dopamine production alone does not indicate that an activity is addictive. He even highlights absurd conclusions drawn using this logic -- that gun ownership is addictive, for example. To put it another way: even if dopamine release is required to produce addiction, not all dopamine release can lead to addiction. Dopamine itself does not produce euphoria[1]; it has a variety of roles in the brain; and it is produced during many non-addictive activities (e.g. skiing or finishing a large puzzle). As the author touches upon, and other researchers confirm in more depth[1][2][3], the reality of dopamine production is complex. Not all dopamine production is the same. It varies by brain region, quantity, and duration, all of which vary its effect on the brain. > "However, while the acute reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse that depend on such fast DA increases are likely 'necessary' for the development of addiction, they are clearly not 'sufficient.' Repeated drug exposure causes changes in DA brain function that take time to develop because they result from secondary neuroadaptations in other neurotransmitter systems (e.g. glutamate and perhaps also γ-aminobutyiric acid (GABA)) that, eventually, affect additional brain circuits modulated by DA."[2] 1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/03/dopamine-the-unsexy-truth https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/03/dopamine-the... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948245/ 3. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/9/3306 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/9/3306
jmull 6y ago
> ...never sufficiently disproves the well researched claim that dopamine when given in artificially large amounts...is indeed addictive. The article is actually addressing the issue where dopamine in natural amounts is considered addictive and harmful, so it doesn’t need to address that.
adrianmonk 6y ago
The article's point is not that dopamine isn't involved in addiction. It's that knowing that dopamine is involved isn't enlightening. What's enlightening is to understand why you get addicted to things that are bad for you. And for that you have to look at the specifics of the situation, not just at the chemical. It's a little bit like saying, hey, I took a road and I went to the wrong destination. Let me look at the road and understand this process. It is paved with asphalt, so maybe asphalt is the problem. Maybe the road surface is too good and easily drivable. Which doesn't make sense, because (a) roads that take you to good destinations are also paved with asphalt and (b) you ended up at a bad destination because of a wrong turn rather than because of the road conditions.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I wonder if this can be generalized along the lines of: problems with processes tend to be dynamic issues, but people want to look for static issues. Like, if something is wrong with your car, it would be nice if there was some magic elixir you can add to fix it, and indeed any auto parts store has dozens. They have fuel injector cleaner, engine stabilizer, stop leak, no smoke additive... But if there is a real problem, it probably requires doing something to fix the way moving parts are interacting, not just adding a little fluid. Which seems to me suggestive of an analogy with how people* talking about adjusting the levels of brain chemicals, when surely it's got to be a dynamic process that isn't working right. *as in, the people who write the patient info pamphlets for psychotropic drugs

conistonwater 6y ago

That is not at all the argument they are making, as far as I can tell.

smt88 6y ago

> At best the author is making a technical distinction that for the most part is inconsequential. I disagree. He explains why the technical distinction is important. His main point is this: dopamine production alone does not indicate that an activity is addictive. He even highlights absurd conclusions drawn using this logic -- that gun ownership is addictive, for example. To put it another way: even if dopamine release is required to produce addiction, not all dopamine release can lead to addiction. Dopamine itself does not produce euphoria[1]; it has a variety of roles in the brain; and it is produced during many non-addictive activities (e.g. skiing or finishing a large puzzle). As the author touches upon, and other researchers confirm in more depth[1][2][3], the reality of dopamine production is complex. Not all dopamine production is the same. It varies by brain region, quantity, and duration, all of which vary its effect on the brain. > "However, while the acute reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse that depend on such fast DA increases are likely 'necessary' for the development of addiction, they are clearly not 'sufficient.' Repeated drug exposure causes changes in DA brain function that take time to develop because they result from secondary neuroadaptations in other neurotransmitter systems (e.g. glutamate and perhaps also γ-aminobutyiric acid (GABA)) that, eventually, affect additional brain circuits modulated by DA."[2] 1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/03/dopamine-the-unsexy-truth https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/03/dopamine-the... 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948245/ 3. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/9/3306 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/9/3306

jmull 6y ago

> ...never sufficiently disproves the well researched claim that dopamine when given in artificially large amounts...is indeed addictive. The article is actually addressing the issue where dopamine in natural amounts is considered addictive and harmful, so it doesn’t need to address that.

adrianmonk 6y ago

The article's point is not that dopamine isn't involved in addiction. It's that knowing that dopamine is involved isn't enlightening. What's enlightening is to understand why you get addicted to things that are bad for you. And for that you have to look at the specifics of the situation, not just at the chemical. It's a little bit like saying, hey, I took a road and I went to the wrong destination. Let me look at the road and understand this process. It is paved with asphalt, so maybe asphalt is the problem. Maybe the road surface is too good and easily drivable. Which doesn't make sense, because (a) roads that take you to good destinations are also paved with asphalt and (b) you ended up at a bad destination because of a wrong turn rather than because of the road conditions.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 6y ago
I wonder if this can be generalized along the lines of: problems with processes tend to be dynamic issues, but people want to look for static issues. Like, if something is wrong with your car, it would be nice if there was some magic elixir you can add to fix it, and indeed any auto parts store has dozens. They have fuel injector cleaner, engine stabilizer, stop leak, no smoke additive... But if there is a real problem, it probably requires doing something to fix the way moving parts are interacting, not just adding a little fluid. Which seems to me suggestive of an analogy with how people* talking about adjusting the levels of brain chemicals, when surely it's got to be a dynamic process that isn't working right. *as in, the people who write the patient info pamphlets for psychotropic drugs