If you happen to be one of those people without a so-called, "additive personality" but enjoys the occasional fiend-fest you can enjoy all those imprinted receptor-pops with satisfying moderation.

I ❤ Opiates and adrenaline

...oh and dopamine. Dopamines' good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'scishow, drugs, brain, chemicals, dopamine, gambling, addiction, vlog, brotthers' to 'scishow, drugs, brain, chemicals, dopamine, gambling, vlogbrotthers, hank, green' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'scishow, drugs, brain, chemicals, dopamine, gambling, addiction' to 'scishow, drugs, brain, chemicals, dopamine, gambling, addiction, vlog, brotthers' - edited by messenger

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

>> ^hpqp:


3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant


So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.

And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.

It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.

Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP

No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

Edgeman, eating causes the release dopamine among other things. The clinical depression is a result of doing less of something your brain likes doing. Fat cells themselves also upregulate chemicals that increase the desire to eat, perpetuating the problem.
You however are citing the Solution to a problem AS the problem. (the problem beaing: eating as a key necessary trigger of hapiness in the individual). The solution, getting your weight under control is not what needs to be avoided here.

Again, this parallels perfectly to smoking. People become irritable/depressed/despondent if they fail, if they try and quit that behavior too. However, we still encourage people to stop smoking.
It is important that they stop for their health, and it, in terms of those in the public eye is a meaningful thing to avoid as a rolemodel.

Again, they are not depressed by weightloss, they are depressed by failing to partake in the dangerous/excessive behavior that causes pleasure. This neuro/chemical imbalance is something we have remedies for. Thanks Pharma!

Watching it again with notes.
Single * are what he says, double ** are what I respond.
*Dopamine is released for novelty - aka new girls/guys.
*No control group, since everyone watches porn.
*Doctors thinks people who like porn, have ADD and related things.
*Internet porn is as different from sex, as video games from checkers.
*Porn is addictive, because of our built-in reward system (dopamine, binge mechanism).
*Excessive addiction, leads to brain changes (other pleasures numbed, hyper reactive to porn, willpower erosion) like all other addictions.
*"Reddit effect" constant novelty is addicting.
*He talks about a voluntary control group of people who voluntarily give up internet porn. I have issues with this.
** In people who voluntarily give up internet porn, there will often be other factors leading to this; say a wife that hates it and influence the man to also hate it. Or some bad experience might turn a person off it. My point is, that he assumes that there's only one variable changes from the rest of the people, and that's not really true, since many other factors play into it, since something caused the willing rejection of internet porn. It's not a true control group.
** Overuse of porn desensitizes the brain, stopping the use returns the sensitivity. This makes sense. This is like any other addiction, this does not say anything about whether or not porn is bad, it says overuse/addiction to porn is bad. I agree with that.

He wants us to not be addicted to porn. This does not speak against anything I've said in this thread.

shinyblurry: If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

Me: Think on this. If a god made me, then any response I make would be the expected response. Going out of my way to reflect a response that is contradictory to my character would in turn be a slap in the face. I will reply in character. I cannot foresee any reason why I wouldn't respond as I've described. Who are you to tell me how I would act. It is NOT irrational to say I wouldn't "Serve" a god that reviled it self to me. It is not in my chemical makeup to be controlled by any such hierarchy. I will not bow to any deity for any reason. That is my chemical makeup.


shinyblurry: You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise.

Me: Why? Because you said?
I expect if there was a God and he created this thing we call existence, I doubt it was a big deal to create it. It's not like much time was put into it. It has so many flaws. It is the most un-perfect thing ever created so it wouldn't garner any praise at all. In fact, I imagine that our existence is much like a drawing from kindergarten that hangs on the fridge compared to what perfection could possibly be. So no, no praise at all.

shinyblurry: Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things.

Me: Um, no it's not!

shinyblurry: We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator.

Me: Um, no we're not!

shinyblurry: People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc.

Me: I don't worship ANYTHING, I don't think you truly know what worship means. To give stock in something isn't worship. It's a means to an end. tools of our existence, and fruits of our labors.
If I like something, it isn't "worship" to engage in it. It's a learned experience given to us through a continued release of dopamine to the pleasure center of our brain. It's a chemical response. It is EXACTLY what we are supposed to be feeling according to the makeup of our own personal existence.

shinyblurry: God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.


Me: What? That doesn't even make any sense. Do you listen to yourself?
"He doesn't need it, therefor he ordains it because he feels he deserves it."
That is one big contradiction.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't know if this holds true for all of us - but what I like - when I get a video sifted, is that it's discussed and shared a lot. This is my "reward" for finding something great. You don't get that Sally Fields "You really like me" dopamine thrill from things that trickle to 10 votes 3 months after they are posted. >> ^longde:

True, but I'm assuming that most people who vote for a video in the long run, find it through search engines. Or the "related videos" list.
Also assuming that front page exposure matters less to a sifter than powerpoints, though one does generate the other.>> ^dag:
But the "eventually it will Sift" model - doesn't give the video the exposure on the front page that a "hot" video would get. Just something to consider.
>> ^longde:
When we talk about something sifting, we really mean something sifting in 2-3 days. However, given that anyone can upvote (lurker or sifter), in the long run, if your video is truly high quality, it will be sifted. Actually, I think in the long run any video with even a minimal appeal will get sifted. In other words, if you have a PQ of 1000 vids of some nominal quality, you can do nothing and in 5-10 years you will reach crown.
I think the sift will reach a steady state, where the tastes of outsiders (vs. active sifters) will affect the overall popularity of videos (as measured by votes) on the site.
So, I sift what I like, knowing that in the long run, 10 votes is a low barrier.

I don't think these hallucinations are exclusive to those going through physiological trauma. I know people that have experienced some of these things hours and days after they've lost a really close loved one (brother, mother, etc). I would hypothesize that this would be related to the abnormal dopamine function noted in the essay. Death is such a heavy and permanent thing that it has a very real physiological effect(for those of you that have experienced this can attest to it being akin to being "hit in the gut").

Wow. I really thought there were all sorts of health problems associated with coffee.

I do drink it regularly, the high wears off as my body stops producing its own dopamine, and I'm merely topping up the dopamine that would have been produced normally. I only get a high when I'm not a regular drinker. But if I drink coffee only occasionally, I just suffer, so I've cut it out entirely.

I had no idea that it actually helped memory. I might try it.

Dopamine! Incidentally coffee happens to make me neurotic which conveniently cancels out this effect a hundred-fold.

I wonder what the dopamine levels are in a teabagger or a birther -- no, seriously. What is the anticipated reward, I wonder?

@chilaxe @NetRunner

I've been stupid busy all week, but would've loved to talk about this stuff with you two.

About importing poverty...have either of you heard of this thesis? I gather that it has been tested, but I haven't seen that evidence myself.

Dopamine, a pleasure-inducing brain chemical, is linked with curiosity, adventure, entrepreneurship, and helps drive results in uncertain environments. Populations generally have about 2% of their members with high enough dopamine levels with the curiosity to emigrate. Ergo, immigrant nations like the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly the UK, have high dopamine-intensity populations.


It's been cited numerous times in things I've read, including in the infamous citigroup plutonomy memos:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

High dopamine is also associated with risk-taking. The citigroup guys were obviously citing it as though being an immigrant nation was going to save us in uncertain times. However, regardless of which theories or hypotheses you subscribe to or hear about, there's something quite different about people who emigrate. Taking that idea further, you have to separate people who emigrated en masse because of rather forced conditions (tons of Irish people during the potato famine, Polish/Lithuanian people in the early 1900s, etc) and individuals who emigrate simply because they're after more money/opportunity.

I've also read some stuff that indicates dopamine levels affect your perception of time. Schizophrenics have really high dopamine levels, which causes their internal clock to speed up, and it alters their perception of time. This is interesting in relation to the dopamine/emigration theory because of Philip Zimbardo's work on perception of time and how it relates to personality.

Plus, Zimbardo's work is just interesting, period:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secret-Powers-of-Time
http://fora.tv/2008/11/12/Philip_Zimbardo_The_Time_Paradox

Another article about time perception with a few mentions of dopamine, drugs, etc.
http://delontin1.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/stretch-time/

Anyway, not to derail things, but it's mostly on topic with all the earlier discussion of brain stuff. I really think perception of time affects our personality in profound ways, and it's clear that brain chemistry affects our perception of time. I also think there's evidence that there can be overall brain chemistry trends in populations which have interesting implications.

>> ^Sagemind:
Is the virtual world somehow tricking the brain beyond a reasonable doubt?
Is the human mind designed/evolved enough to withstand the brainwashing that takes place when bombarded with digital stimuli?
Online Gaming, Second life, Virtual worlds, Chat rooms and Communities all seem to be a form of digital crack that we all joke about but are we actually sending false signals to our brains that are becoming so real that we can no longer distinguish between real and virtual?
Like with actual Crack, our brains are being rewarded with Dopamine every time we succeed at a positive interaction withing this new world. The chemical reward gets recorded in our brain and somehow starts registering Real-world responses up against the Virtual-world experiences.
It looks like the virtual reactions and responses are starting to outweigh the real world interactions causing our brains to make a deformed choice.
... Just my ramblings!


You ever read Neuromancer? Eventually the wealthy (this technology will not be available to the middle-class or the poor) will have their consciousness stored in computers that are hooked up to cloning devices. Virtual worlds will then shift over to become the natural environment for these people, turning the real world into the unnatural.