6 ms·

You're really out of date. See wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction. Dopamine Nation b

You're really out of date. See wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_addiction. Dopamine Nation by Anna Lambke (Chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic at Stanford University) is a good pop sci intro. Plenty of other published research.

superkuh 3y ago
That's an edutainment book written for profit (https://www.annalembke.com/events https://www.annalembke.com/events) by someone who's income depends on fearmongering and getting interviewed/giving paid talks. Especially the title, "Dopamine Nation" and the abstracts I've read. It harkens back to the 1970s when people still mistakenly believed that dopaminergic populations were responsible for the perceptions of pleasure in the brain. Those are implemented by glutamergic populations in the shell of the nucleus accumbens and ventral pallidum. Anyone writing a book about dopaminergic pleasure is still in the 1970s. Dopaminegic populations encode for wanting, not liking, and predict reward (necessary but not sufficiently encoded in the ventral tegemental area). But they are not reward. I'm not out of date. I read journal articles on this every week and have for the last 20 years.
- kelipso 3y ago
  You seem to have a very narrow definition of what addiction is. Considering how similarly people with behavioral and drug addictions act and how similarly the brain reacts to drug and non-drug addictions, your definition is much too narrow and yes, out of date. Plenty of research in this topic, not just Lembke, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/ for example.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Another single author paper. But at least he's citing Robinson and Berridge, 2008, that's solid work. But then it goes on to try to say any changes in the brain (he phrases it as neuroplasticity) are addiction indicators. But that's simply not true. He should re-visit Berridge (who does actual science and not just meta-studies) and look at more recent work on incentive salience and teasing apart the mechanisms of liking vs wanting.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      So you would like to basically define addiction only if the brain uses the wanting mechanism instead of the liking mechanism. Which is ridiculous, since people act very similarly whether the wanting mechanism is used or not. It's basically a silly little definitional thing to exclude an entire class of addictions, even though people in both classes act very similarly.

superkuh 3y ago

That's an edutainment book written for profit (https://www.annalembke.com/events https://www.annalembke.com/events) by someone who's income depends on fearmongering and getting interviewed/giving paid talks. Especially the title, "Dopamine Nation" and the abstracts I've read. It harkens back to the 1970s when people still mistakenly believed that dopaminergic populations were responsible for the perceptions of pleasure in the brain. Those are implemented by glutamergic populations in the shell of the nucleus accumbens and ventral pallidum. Anyone writing a book about dopaminergic pleasure is still in the 1970s. Dopaminegic populations encode for wanting, not liking, and predict reward (necessary but not sufficiently encoded in the ventral tegemental area). But they are not reward. I'm not out of date. I read journal articles on this every week and have for the last 20 years.

kelipso 3y ago
You seem to have a very narrow definition of what addiction is. Considering how similarly people with behavioral and drug addictions act and how similarly the brain reacts to drug and non-drug addictions, your definition is much too narrow and yes, out of date. Plenty of research in this topic, not just Lembke, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/ for example.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Another single author paper. But at least he's citing Robinson and Berridge, 2008, that's solid work. But then it goes on to try to say any changes in the brain (he phrases it as neuroplasticity) are addiction indicators. But that's simply not true. He should re-visit Berridge (who does actual science and not just meta-studies) and look at more recent work on incentive salience and teasing apart the mechanisms of liking vs wanting.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    So you would like to basically define addiction only if the brain uses the wanting mechanism instead of the liking mechanism. Which is ridiculous, since people act very similarly whether the wanting mechanism is used or not. It's basically a silly little definitional thing to exclude an entire class of addictions, even though people in both classes act very similarly.