[mettamage]

Disclaimer to grandparent: I found your comment a useful read. This is a bit of a nitpick, but one that I thought quite long about.

--- the comment ---

Moreover, you can't actually measure whether it's dopamine, you're simply hypothesizing that it is. And while I'm inclined to believe that dopamine would be involved, you don't strictly know. Saying neuro-terms like "dopamine" may make things sound more real or true, but they aren't more real or more true as you're not measuring your brain.

In that sense neuroscience feels a bit similar to religion (just a bit, from my agnostic perspective). Yes, you use scientific concepts, but since nothing is measured, you as an interested person in neuroscience have no clue what is actually happening in your brain. But it does sound more compelling! Not needing to measure anything while using theories that sound highly convincing to a certain group with certain ideals is how most religion feels like to me (not all though, I can definitely appreciate certain theological discourses of all religions, and I also appreciate religions that don't have a strong emphasis on gods, for example).

So on HN I try to limit my neural babble as much as possible when I talk about my own experiences as my cortisol levels are spiking too much -- ;-) -- when I'm reading neuro-explained anecdotes. I hope that HN'ers see my point or feel that there are convincing counterarguments to this that might make for an interesting discussion.