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.
We don't have 50 different homeostatic systems and 50 different neurochemicals to underlie our drive, to eat our drive for romantic interactions, our drive for friendship interactions, we have essentially one, maybe two, and they all funnel into the same dopamine system.
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.
Now we think of that as comfort foods or soothing oneself through eating rather than social interaction as a kind of pathology, but while it might not be healthy, depending on the context and the person, it's really important to understand that the reason that happens is because we have a common circuit and that the system meaning the person is actually craving dopamine release. They don't consciously know this, this is all subconsciously carried out, but they're craving dopamine release. And if they can't get it from social interactions, as they normally would, they'll start seeking it from food.