The crimes against dopamine
Mark Humphries

Just a couple of thoughts.

  1. I don’t think 90% of readers understand what “prediction error” means. In law and in academic research studies, why do the authors either switch the order of words or combine words? It literally makes it 5 times harder for lay people and probably other professsionals to read the text. There is a push in law to make statutes and code to use more everday language instead of obscure words and words combined in a strange way. Is it possible that such a push can be made in academic research writing?
  2. I didn’t really understand the point of this article. My layman’s understanding of dopamine is that the prediction error part of dopamine is only part of it’s function. It’s other major function is involved in getting our minds to do things that lead to pleasure. Isn’t ok to say that this is part of the reward system? I do get your point that it’s misleading because people will think that dopamine directly leads to feelings of pleasure (because it doesn’t) but is this misnomer such a travesty?
  3. In science, isn’t everything a fad? EVERY theory or scientific detail gets pushed aside with something better but it’s still something to get excited about, no? Perhaps your point is that it’s going to get pushed aside faster than other discoveries. I don’t know but I am guessing that it’s going to be here to stay around for longer than you think.