20 votes

How accurate is the conventional wisdom about dopamine?

“Dopamine” has entered cultural conversations as roughly equivalent to “the feel-good brain chemical.” People talk about “dopamine hits” and “dopamine fasts” and “low dopamine.” In a recent conversation a family member talked about starting the day on his phone and scrolling feeds “because I’ve gotta get my dopamine up before work.”

There’s a seemingly widespread understanding that dopamine makes us feel good and that it can be used against us to make us do things we don’t necessarily like (like endlessly scroll feeds).

Is any of this accurate to how dopamine actually works in our brains? It feels like an oversimplification to me, but I don’t actually know.

It also seems odd to me that there’s so much focus on dopamine but not, say, oxytocin or serotonin (unless you’re a Billie Eilish or Girl in Red fan, respectively).

Is our lay understanding of “dopamine” efficient shorthand or pseudoscientific sleight of hand?

16 comments

  1. daywalker
    Link
    Here are some excerpts by the Harvard Health Publishing. (...) Mind that this is not simply about feeling good in general, but feeling good in the context of a reward system. So, dopamine is...

    Here are some excerpts by the Harvard Health Publishing.

    Dopamine is most notably involved in helping us feel pleasure as part of the brain's reward system. Sex, shopping, smelling cookies baking in the oven — all these things can trigger dopamine release, or a "dopamine rush."

    (...)

    Dopamine also plays a role in these functions:
    learning and attention
    mood
    movement
    heart rate
    kidney function
    blood vessel function
    sleep
    pain processing
    lactation.

    Mind that this is not simply about feeling good in general, but feeling good in the context of a reward system. So, dopamine is definitely a central part of the brain's reward system, and it is associated with positive feelings that "reward" you for seeking certain behaviors.

    However, the literature suggests it's not the only neurotransmitter that plays a role in that. For example, gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), another neurotransmitter, is also part of the reward system.

    VTA GABA neurons have increasingly been recognized as potent mediators of reward and aversion in their own right, as well as potential targets for the treatment of addiction, depression, and other stress-linked disorders.

    Another example is orexin, another neurotransmitter produced in the brain.. Here are two highlights about its function from a recent review from 2022.

    • Orexins increase reward-related and anxiety-like behaviors, and stress responses.
    • Orexinergic antagonists induce anti-reward effects.

    Here's a quote from another review from 2015.

    ... orexins also have an established role in reward seeking.

    The wiki entry for it lists its interactions with other neurotransmitters and neurotransmitter systems.

    Orexinergic neurons have been shown to be sensitive to inputs from Group III metabotropic glutamate receptors,[57] cannabinoid receptor 1 and CB1–OX1 receptor heterodimers,[58][59][60] adenosine A1 receptors,[61] muscarinic M3 receptors,[62] serotonin 5-HT1A receptors,[63] neuropeptide Y receptors,[64] cholecystokinin A receptors,[65] and catecholamines,[66][67] as well as to ghrelin, leptin, and glucose.[68] Orexinergic neurons themselves regulate release of acetylcholine,[69][70] serotonin, and noradrenaline.[71]

    Brain chemistry is not my expertise, but I'd say the common layperson understanding of dopamine's role in the reward system, and the associated positive feelings, is an oversimplification. On an abstracted level, it's not exactly wrong, but it definitely oversimplifies very complex processes down to a single neurotransmitter, which is the misguided part. It's also worth reminding once more that dopamine is associated with regulating these feelings in the context of a reward, but "positive vibes" are not solely about the reward system, and definitely has a bunch of other systems and neurotransmitters involved, some of which you mentioned. It's also worth mentioning that neurotransmitters are not reducible to a "more = good" equation. It's much more complex than that. If it was that simple, we already would have much better pharmaceutical solutions to diseases like depression. For example, "increases in dopamine activity in certain parts of the brain can contribute to the positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

    In conclusion, while dopamine has a central role in positive feelings associated with reward-seeking behavior, it's part of a bigger and complex system.

    25 votes
  2. [2]
    imperialismus
    Link
    Note: not a neuroscientist, just a person who read lots of papers. These two things are not the same! A lot of the research of the past 20+ years on the role of dopamine in reward has leaned in...

    Note: not a neuroscientist, just a person who read lots of papers.

    There’s a seemingly widespread understanding that dopamine makes us feel good and that it can be used against us to make us do things we don’t necessarily like (like endlessly scroll feeds).

    These two things are not the same! A lot of the research of the past 20+ years on the role of dopamine in reward has leaned in the direction of separating reward from reward seeking, or "wanting" from "liking". There's some evidence that dopamine motivates reward seeking behavior, but may not necessarily be involved in the actual reward itself. It enhances the anticipation of pleasure, and can even motivate you to do things that you know rationally aren't going to be pleasurable. But it's likely that the primary modulator of the actual feel-good feelings isn't dopamine.

    When researchers look for "hedonic hotspots", which are areas of the brain that are involving in causing an increase in pleasurable feelings, they tend to be activated by opioid or endocannabinoid stimulation, rather than dopamine. Some may also be modulated by GABA.

    Of course, the brain is a super complex thing and the common idea of one chemical for each feeling or whatever is a vast oversimplification, but I'm sure you suspected as much.

    Here is a source that discusses hedonic hotspots and gets into the role, or lack thereof, of dopamine at the end (in-line citations removed for ease of reading):

    Perhaps the most famous candidate for a brain substrate that generates pleasure were so-called “pleasure electrodes”, which used brain electrical stimulation of the subcortical limbic forebrain to reinforce self-administration behavior such as pressing a lever or pushing a button. Pleasure electrodes were typically
    aimed at the septum or lateral hypothalamus, though a number of the sites fell within what neuroanatomists would now call the nucleus accumbens, and most electrodes likely activated mesolimbic dopamine systems. Some patients stimulated these ‘pleasure electrodes’ thousands of times in a single 3-hour session. Many textbooks cite these cases as examples of intense brain-induced pleasure. But despite such dramatic self-administration, it is questionable whether many of those electrodes ever actually caused pleasure.

    For example, “B-19”, a young man with chronic electrodes implanted by Heath and colleagues in the 1960s, voraciously self-stimulated his electrode located in septum and nucleus accumbens, and protested when the stimulation button was taken away. Still, B-19 was never reported to utter exclamations of delight or to say that the electrodes caused pleasure thrills. Instead, B19 reported that stimulating his electrode evoked desire to stimulate again, as well as a strong desire to engage in sexual activities. Another Heath patient said his electrode “made him feel as if he were building up to sexual orgasm” but left him “unable to achieve the orgastic end point”, an outcome which often was frustrating and produced a “nervous feeling” that seems nearly opposite to pleasure.
    (...)

    Dopamine is not needed to cause normal pleasure of food or drugs of abuse. For example, even massive destruction of ascending dopamine projections does not impair affective ‘liking’ reactions elicited by
    a sweet taste. Similarly, complete gene-based elimination of dopamine has been suggested to not impair ‘liking’ in dopamine-deficient mutant mice. Nor does dopamine blockade by neuroleptic drugs reduce ‘liking’ facial reactions of rats to sweetness. In humans, the perceived pleasantness of chocolate milk is not reduced by the loss of brain dopamine neurons in Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, human subjective ratings of the pleasantness of amphetamine, cocaine or cigarettes have been reported to persist unsuppressed by dopamine-blocking drugs or dietary-induced dopamine depletion, even when those treatments do suppress wanting
    for more of the same drug.

    When I first stumbled upon this idea that you could have this brain chemical that causes you to want to do something, but doesn't actually make you like doing that thing when you're actually doing it, it kind of blew my mind. If this turns out to be the case, it has huge implications for all kinds of addictive behavior, whether it's drugs or food or doomscrolling.

    14 votes
    1. sparksbet
      Link Parent
      The science you quoted is genuinely super interesting, but my favorite part is realizing that they were checking the rats' facial expressions to see if they liked sweet things 😭 that's so cute

      Nor does dopamine blockade by neuroleptic drugs reduce ‘liking’ facial reactions of rats to sweetness.

      The science you quoted is genuinely super interesting, but my favorite part is realizing that they were checking the rats' facial expressions to see if they liked sweet things 😭 that's so cute

      3 votes
  3. eyechoirs
    Link
    Dopamine certainly can induce pleasurable feelings, but its role in the brain is quite complicated and it's not so simple as dopamine = pleasure. Really, a more critical function of dopamine is to...

    Dopamine certainly can induce pleasurable feelings, but its role in the brain is quite complicated and it's not so simple as dopamine = pleasure. Really, a more critical function of dopamine is to enact a feeling of 'reward salience' - in other words, pointing the brain's attention toward a reward. I remember seeing a study where they observed the brains of tobacco users during the act of smoking, and they began releasing dopamine even prior to the first hit, pretty much as soon as the user opened the pack of cigarettes. Indeed, many drug users report that the ritual of obtaining and preparing their drug of choice is practically as enjoyable as using the drug itself.

    For some dopaminergic drugs, disproportionately little euphoria is produced compared to compulsion and craving. This is sometimes said about crack cocaine, but there are worse ones, many from the substituted cathinone family. I have no personal experience with those, but from people I've talked to, really only the first few hits are pleasurable, and from that point it's an increasingly terrible experience, like trying to scratch and unscratchable itch, practically being forced to continue using the drug by the dopamine circuits of your brain despite frightening cardiovascular symptoms, paranoid delusions, formication, etc.

    When you feel a 'dopamine' hit, whether it be from a more typical and benign drug or a life experience of some kind, there's usually actually a multifactorial response that involves other neurotransmitters like serotonin, GABA, endorphins, as well as higher psychological responses like emotions, memories, and beliefs that aren't intrinsically tied to a single neurotransmitter.

    11 votes
  4. sparksbet
    Link
    Other people have talked about the science more than I could. The one thing I wanted to leave a comment to emphasize is that "dopamine fasts" are bullshit and don't have any reasonable scientific...

    Other people have talked about the science more than I could. The one thing I wanted to leave a comment to emphasize is that "dopamine fasts" are bullshit and don't have any reasonable scientific basis (at least not one related to dopamine). Dopamine is a reward/motivation chemical, not a pleasure chemical, so if you were actually "fasting" from dopamine (which isn't actually accomplished by the things included in a "dopamine fast"), it would be bad.

    As an illustration of why, lowered dopamine levels (as a result of some other more complex stuff) is part of the issue for people with ADHD -- it turns out when your brain can't get enough of the reward chemical from doing normal things, you start exhibiting trouble regulating your attention, executive function issues, and impulsivity. If anything, this would increase dependence on things "dopamine fasts" try to cut out like screen time and sex, since those give you an immediate hit of pleasure that you don't get when you, for instance, wash the dishes. Dopamine serves a valuable function here -- that reward signal motivates us to do things that aren't pleasurable but are good for us. "Fasting" from dopamine would be like "fasting" from your salary and still going into work.

    6 votes
  5. AspiringAlienist
    Link
    I am trained in neuroscience, but the finer details are no longer part of my daily job. The explanation of @eyechoirs match my view of the role of dopamine in the brain with regard to your...

    I am trained in neuroscience, but the finer details are no longer part of my daily job. The explanation of @eyechoirs match my view of the role of dopamine in the brain with regard to your question.

    The brain is not like an experience machine, you drop in some happy neurotransmitter and you feel happy, or you dump in some sad juice and feel sad. Really understanding the brain is hard if not impossible. At best, we measure activity and deduce which neurotransmitter is responsible in X area of the brain. Most studies take proxies of proxies (fMRI, or behavior in other species). I’m partial to the electrode implanting stuff.

    What has been found by putting electrodes into the brain of monkeys, is that firing in neurons with dopamine receptors in the part of the brain associated with reward is more related to cues signaling reward is to be expected, or either unexpected rewards without cue. See:
    Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593-1599.

    This phenomenon is strongly implied in the near-miss effect, which is why gambling has the potential to be so addictive. Cues that are signaling incoming reward (slot machine playing 7, 7 … bar), will tickle your reward center, even without giving the reward. So let’s try again, and again, and again.

    5 votes
  6. [6]
    Amarok
    Link
    I'd say it is fairly well understood, but not in popular culture. Be careful where you get your information. Most of what's out there is just chatter without much scientific understanding behind...

    I'd say it is fairly well understood, but not in popular culture. Be careful where you get your information. Most of what's out there is just chatter without much scientific understanding behind it. If you're really curious about it, Dr. Andrew Huberman has a series of videos. I'd recommend the long form rather than the short clips which don't paint a complete picture. I'd say the best one to start with is this one. If you want something shorter, HealthyGamer has a half hour overview.

    The short version - this is your body's reward mechanism, and you perturb it at your own peril. Unfortunately, most of society is built to squeeze every last drop of it out of you before lunch.

    4 votes
    1. [3]
      daywalker
      Link Parent
      I wouldn't recommend HealthyGamer. He pushes a lot of his pseudoscientific views mixed with scientific knowledge.
      2 votes
      1. [2]
        arch
        Link Parent
        Counterpoint, Dr. Kanojia holds a BS in biology from University of Texas at Austin, as well as a MD/MPH from Tufts University. He is a licensed and practicing Psychiatrist. He is not without...

        Counterpoint, Dr. Kanojia holds a BS in biology from University of Texas at Austin, as well as a MD/MPH from Tufts University. He is a licensed and practicing Psychiatrist. He is not without legitimate controversy, though I can't find any legitimate source of it being related to his views on pseudoscience. I can find plenty of it from youtube comments and the like, but nothing from a medical board or other medical professional. I in no way turned over every rock in looking.

        2 votes
        1. sparksbet
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I think the person you replied to is aware of the fact that he's a practicing psychiatrist. They themselves say that the pseudoscientific views he presents are mixed with scientific knowledge. I...

          I think the person you replied to is aware of the fact that he's a practicing psychiatrist. They themselves say that the pseudoscientific views he presents are mixed with scientific knowledge. I don't think the controversy you linked is related to pseudoscience, but he does very openly advocate for certain pseudoscientific alternative medicine approaches, and that's worthy of a critical eye even if it's unrelated to that incident. In the about me on his website it says (emphasis mine):

          Dr. Kanojia’s integrative medical and psychiatric training includes Harvard Medical School’s MGH/McLean Residency Program, 100+ meditation therapies, and an evidence-based background in Ayurvedic mental health. He began studying alternative therapies including yoga, meditation, and Reiki in 2003 with particular attention to the Ayurvedic principle that mental health is inextricably linked to physical health.

          The wikipedia pages about Ayurveda and Reiki refer to them as pseudoscientific within their first paragraphs, so it's not exactly controversial to refer to them as such. Does that mean everything he draws from them is bad or that nothing from them can be helpful? No, but it's definitely worth tempering any recommendations for his work by noting that he is an advocate for these things.

          I've watched some of his videos on mental health topics and they've been good and informative, but he does absolutely present his insights from ayurveda in an equally authoritative way as scientific knowledge, in my experience. While I think there's still plenty of good mental health info in much of his content, I personally wouldn't recommend him to someone unless I knew they'd be able to critically assess what he's saying and whether it's well-founded. There's also the issue that, while he does clarify that his content is not medical/psychiatric advice, there are absolutely people who treat them as such.

          1 vote
    2. [2]
      V17
      Link Parent
      Adding this recommendation - Huberman has recently been getting some criticism because he's sometimes overconfident in topics that are outside his expertise and extrapolates too much from studies...

      If you're really curious about it, Dr. Andrew Huberman has a series of videos. I'd recommend the long form rather than the short clips which don't paint a complete picture.

      Adding this recommendation - Huberman has recently been getting some criticism because he's sometimes overconfident in topics that are outside his expertise and extrapolates too much from studies that don't fully support what he's saying, but specifically with regards to dopamine I don't think this is the case, he usually cites relatively specific human studies and this is his area of expertise.

      Regarding HealthyGamer, I think the criticisms of him are a bit overblown, but I also think Huberman is the better choice here.

      2 votes
      1. Amarok
        Link Parent
        I don't take criticisms that seriously myself. They pop up all over the moment someone has success. The critics never suggest better alternatives, they just nitpick over trivia, so it looks more...

        I don't take criticisms that seriously myself. They pop up all over the moment someone has success. The critics never suggest better alternatives, they just nitpick over trivia, so it looks more like envy than an honest critique. Too much 'gotcha' culture, not enough introspection. There isn't a single professional out there that doesn't get something wrong in their presentations. Nobody is perfect, or even halfway to perfect, and they never will be.

        I dig Huberman over a lot of other podcasters because he gets deeply technical and provides references. I like people who do their homework so that I don't have to. Healthygamer is not on the same level at all, but he's fun and is providing some much needed help for people with video game addictions. Social media is a better place because of both of them.

        1 vote
  7. post_below
    Link
    As @daywalker pointed out there's a lot more going on, the idea of dopamine as the "feel good chemical" is pretty inaccurate. But I think dopamine has become something like popular culture...

    As @daywalker pointed out there's a lot more going on, the idea of dopamine as the "feel good chemical" is pretty inaccurate.

    But I think dopamine has become something like popular culture shorthand for a new paradigm for understanding mood, motivation and so on from a neurochemical perspective. Which I think is really valuable, it moves us away from the illusion that our conscious selves have full control over what happens in our brain. Our large forebrains are a relatively new addon, attached to a primordial survival machine that, to some degree, can take over the whole show when it wants to.

    My understanding is that the idea that dopamine makes you feel good is a long debunked misconception. Instead it seems to be more closely associated with motivation. It helps you do the things that will make you feel good but isn't responsible for the good feelings themselves.

    And also, the ship has sailed, it'll be a long time before people stop talking about dopamine hits.

    4 votes
  8. [3]
    BeanBurrito
    Link

    pseudoscientific sleight of hand?

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      kfwyre
      Link Parent
      Cheeky (but clumsy) wordplay on my part, riffing off of “shorthand” earlier in the sentence. I was essentially asking if our conventional framework for “dopamine” was worthwhile or misleading.

      Cheeky (but clumsy) wordplay on my part, riffing off of “shorthand” earlier in the sentence.

      I was essentially asking if our conventional framework for “dopamine” was worthwhile or misleading.

      1 vote
      1. BeanBurrito
        Link Parent
        The popular understanding of dopamine is way off. I'm not an expert or a professional in the field. I've come across a few videos and articles that the popular social media understanding of...

        The popular understanding of dopamine is way off.

        I'm not an expert or a professional in the field. I've come across a few videos and articles that the popular social media understanding of dopamine is all stretched out of shape. Similar to how off the Red Pill's understanding evolutionary behavior is.

        1 vote