The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So if you don't get as much dopamine as you're expecting from something, so you you hear about a really great restaurant or a place that has a really, in my case, I have, I wouldn't call it an addiction. I would call it more of an affliction for croissants.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And we actually there's a name for that. It's called reward prediction error. And you can actually use this in the context of meals and plans in a way that's very useful with yourself and people you know, essentially if you expect something to be really terrific it really does place a higher expectation at the chemical level.