4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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