|
|
|
|
|
|
by superkuh
738 days ago
|
|
|
I'll put in as much effort in my rebutal as was shown in the initial false statement (very little). In the 60/70s there was this idea that dopaminergic populations of neurons (of which there are many with different roles, but here lets simply talk about the mesolimbic populations in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Early electrophysiological studies found that activiating these populations could lead to animal models doing whatever was necessary to get them stimulated again. This lead to the idea of dopamine as the "pleasure chemical". But since then it's been found that in the VTA and (shell of) the NAc the dopaminergic populations don't actually encode for pleasure or reward at all. The reward/pleasure is mediated almost entirely by glutamergic neurons in the NAc, and the dopaminergic projections there from the VTA encode for belief in possible future reward, not reward itself. Dopamine is wanting (prediction of liking), not liking. Furthermore, the idea that screens are a special type of stimuli that can directly bypass the senses and act like a dopaminergic drug to increase incentive salience (wanting) without there being intrinsic pleasure to the stimuli is absurd and unsupported magical thinking. It needs no special disproval; the burden of proof is on such a wild unphysical claim. Screens are not, and cannot be "addictive". That word has a medical meaning and it does not cover screens. You may object and say, "But what of gambling?" to which I respond, the DSM5+ and ICD10 both have it as "gambling disorder" because it's not an addiction and it's a grandfathered in disorder at that; all by itself. Additionally, the DSM spent the last decade addressing the potential issue of "screens" and each commitee returned with the same conclusion: not enough evidence for inclusion (latest was 2022). If you really do want to learn the nitty gritty details and see the references I suggest starting with Kent Berridge's lab on affective neuroscience and his review papers, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/ |
|
|
> Furthermore, the idea that screens are a special type of stimuli that can directly bypass the senses and act like a dopaminergic drug to increase incentive salience (wanting) without there being intrinsic pleasure to the stimuli is absurd and unsupported magical thinking.
Or at least it's not the damning point you're making it out to be. I think there is an issue with smartphones, attention, and development, but I don't claim that screens are anything other than an audiovisual medium. Nor do I think they need to increase specifically "incentive salience without intrinsic pleasure" to be a problem.
Do you not see gambling addiction as an issue in real life? Do you not see massively decreased attention statistics as an issue in real life? It feels like you're arguing against a position that is both incorrect and irrelevant, when the rest of us are talking about things that are obviously an issue in real life, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with this approach.
Do you not struggle with anything like what is being discussed here, or see it in others?