There's definitely genetic vulnerability to addiction. There's also contextual vulnerability. The famous rat park study seems to show that even rodents will prefer natural rewards - even after addiction - if they are available in sufficient quantities.
I think that slot machines have been designed to generate quite precisely the intermittent rewards and expectations that are required for the hijacking of the reward signal. I wonder if poker addiction is really addiction sensu stricto? It's empircally tractable: we understand the neurobiology. I
You may have seen Netflix’s Adolescence. It quickly became their most-watched mini-series ever, even prompting roundtable discussions between writers & the Prime Minister.
We might say there’s addiction (sensu stricto) and addiction. The first induces significantly greater behavioural deregulation in typical circumstances.
2/2 Only gambling produces the same sort of midbrain dopaminergic response. We can’t learn the reward value of drugs and gambling because they hijack the reward signal. Nothing else is like that.
1/2 I hate this kind of talk. People may find themselves struggling to control any sort of behaviour. But the neurobiology of alcohol and other classic addictive drugs is distinctive. That difference is almost certainly correlated with special difficulties in control over use.
I understood the US typically understood "working class" as meaning "without a four year degree". At least, that's how it is used in some polling I've read. It's obviously problematic: Bill Gates would be working class.
In my mid 20s, I was working on Foucault and Heidegger and accepted a strong social constructionism of scientific facts. I have a terrible memory: protects me from ever solidifying.
I think politicians generally are underpaid. If it were up to me, they would be paid more and have an even more generous superannuation. Those who have served for more than some number of years would be banned from holding a paid position after leaving office.
Springer sent me an empty box that smelled of tea and said "tea" on the lid. The commissioning editor knew I was a tea drinker. Beyond that, I can't explain it.
We crap on them, but academic publishers do it tough. I know from experience. For around a decade, I edited the journal Neuroethics. When I stepped down, Springer scraped together money to send me a gift. Sadly, Springer couldn't afford not to consume the tea that was in it when they bought it.
The virtue signaling literature predicts ever more escalation, driven by status competition. My sense is woke views have de-escalated in the past few years. Do the signaling accounts have an explanation?
