3 ms·

I don’t like the phrase “normal reward behaviors” in this article. We don’t live in “normal” conditions relative to our evolutionary history. Maybe these resp

I don’t like the phrase “normal reward behaviors” in this article. We don’t live in “normal” conditions relative to our evolutionary history. Maybe these responses are adaptive and provide a fitness advantage under historically normal conditions even if they appear maladaptive in the current environment.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
[flagged]
- isityouyesitsme 4y ago
  I think you've managed to miss the OP point entirely.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    How so?
hirvi74 4y ago
> Maybe these responses are adaptive and provide a fitness advantage under historically normal conditions even if they appear maladaptive in the current environment. It's equally possible that the responses are maladaptive and provide a fitness disadvantage under historically normal and current conditions too. Evolution is not always well optimized, and sometimes "bugs" make it through. One just needs to be fit enough to reproduce -- nothing else matters after that.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  I once saw someone describe evolution as a lazy man. Because evolution doesn't optimize for "the best", it optimizes for "good enough".
  - hirvi74 4y ago
    I can believe this, for my brain has also optimized similarly. Perhaps, I have evolved? (JK)
  - watwut 4y ago
    The one description that makes most sense to me is the claim that evolution is not a god. It does not reason through issues, it does not have conscience and it definitely does not have goals. It is just a thing that happens through random changes and culling out very bad experiments. The mutation just have to be not too bad. And even bad one can survive forever if not everyone with it dies.
    - hirvi74 4y ago
      > The mutation just have to be not too bad. And even bad one can survive forever if not everyone with it dies. Exactly. I have green eyes which is technically a genetic mutation. I do not think it provides any advantages, but it also causes no harms. It just is what it is.
carbonguy 4y ago
> I don’t like the phrase “normal reward behaviors” in this article... Maybe these responses are adaptive and provide a fitness advantage under historically normal conditions even if they appear maladaptive in the current environment. Agreed - the cant of this article could just as easily be "environmental factors during formative years influence behavior at maturity" without representing a particular set of responses as "normal" or "abnormal". I'm surprised they didn't use adaptive/maladaptive, like you do; it seems more appropriate.
somenameforme 4y ago
This is exactly what I was thinking, and the article even seems to affirm it: "As adults, the early adversity-experiencing male mice had little interest in sweet foods or sex cues compared to typically reared mice. In contrast, adversity-experiencing females craved rich, sweet food. Inhibiting the pathway restored normal reward behaviors in males, yet it had no effect in females." Okay, so they're not going to be obese and spending every night swiping right? Our bodies, minds, and everything about us is evolving and changing, and this will never end. If you take some point in the past as "normal" and everything else as "abnormal" then you simply dedicate yourself to trying to stop potentially adaptive changes. And somehow I trust evolution much more than psychology. Of course I'm handwaving away this sentence, "Impaired function of this circuit is thought to underlie several major disorders, such as depression, substance abuse and excessive risk-taking." But I'd observe that 'thought to underlie' is an exceptionally weak phrasing, and the balance between pros and cons was seemingly left completely unconsidered. Obviously a genetic craving for rich, sweet food is obviously corpulently maladaptive in modern society, even if it would probably have been neutral to beneficial in the past.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

[flagged]

isityouyesitsme 4y ago
I think you've managed to miss the OP point entirely.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  How so?

hirvi74 4y ago

> Maybe these responses are adaptive and provide a fitness advantage under historically normal conditions even if they appear maladaptive in the current environment. It's equally possible that the responses are maladaptive and provide a fitness disadvantage under historically normal and current conditions too. Evolution is not always well optimized, and sometimes "bugs" make it through. One just needs to be fit enough to reproduce -- nothing else matters after that.

Dalewyn 4y ago
I once saw someone describe evolution as a lazy man. Because evolution doesn't optimize for "the best", it optimizes for "good enough".
- hirvi74 4y ago
  I can believe this, for my brain has also optimized similarly. Perhaps, I have evolved? (JK)
- watwut 4y ago
  The one description that makes most sense to me is the claim that evolution is not a god. It does not reason through issues, it does not have conscience and it definitely does not have goals. It is just a thing that happens through random changes and culling out very bad experiments. The mutation just have to be not too bad. And even bad one can survive forever if not everyone with it dies.
  - hirvi74 4y ago
    > The mutation just have to be not too bad. And even bad one can survive forever if not everyone with it dies. Exactly. I have green eyes which is technically a genetic mutation. I do not think it provides any advantages, but it also causes no harms. It just is what it is.

carbonguy 4y ago

> I don’t like the phrase “normal reward behaviors” in this article... Maybe these responses are adaptive and provide a fitness advantage under historically normal conditions even if they appear maladaptive in the current environment. Agreed - the cant of this article could just as easily be "environmental factors during formative years influence behavior at maturity" without representing a particular set of responses as "normal" or "abnormal". I'm surprised they didn't use adaptive/maladaptive, like you do; it seems more appropriate.

somenameforme 4y ago

This is exactly what I was thinking, and the article even seems to affirm it: "As adults, the early adversity-experiencing male mice had little interest in sweet foods or sex cues compared to typically reared mice. In contrast, adversity-experiencing females craved rich, sweet food. Inhibiting the pathway restored normal reward behaviors in males, yet it had no effect in females." Okay, so they're not going to be obese and spending every night swiping right? Our bodies, minds, and everything about us is evolving and changing, and this will never end. If you take some point in the past as "normal" and everything else as "abnormal" then you simply dedicate yourself to trying to stop potentially adaptive changes. And somehow I trust evolution much more than psychology. Of course I'm handwaving away this sentence, "Impaired function of this circuit is thought to underlie several major disorders, such as depression, substance abuse and excessive risk-taking." But I'd observe that 'thought to underlie' is an exceptionally weak phrasing, and the balance between pros and cons was seemingly left completely unconsidered. Obviously a genetic craving for rich, sweet food is obviously corpulently maladaptive in modern society, even if it would probably have been neutral to beneficial in the past.