How Information is Like Snacks, Money, and Drugs To Your Brain (berkeley.edu) 56
A new study by researchers at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business has found that information acts on the brain's dopamine-producing reward system in the same way as money or food. From a report: "To the brain, information is its own reward, above and beyond whether it's useful," says Assoc. Prof. Ming Hsu, a neuroeconomist. "And just as our brains like empty calories from junk food, they can overvalue information that makes us feel good but may not be useful -- what some may call idle curiosity." The paper, "Common neural code for reward and information value," was published this month by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Authored by Hsu and graduate student Kenji Kobayashi, now a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, it demonstrates that the brain converts information into the same common scale as it does for money. It also lays the groundwork for unraveling the neuroscience behind how we consume information -- and perhaps even digital addiction.
Everything is information (Score:3, Insightful)
But everything is information for the brain. Food, touch, smell, reading, pictures, imagination... all of it is information for the brain converted by our senses.
The brain is one giant addiction center where it decides what it wants more of and what it wants less of. If you are motivated and excited... it wants more of that! If you are bored and tired... the brain wants you to go do something else or sleep.
I guess folks these days are so stupid and ignorant that they need to research all of the basics all over again!
This study is as obvious as watching a child learn about their environment when they learn to walk and discover things.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a small toddler picking up a toy and letting it drop discovering gravity is a scientist in this context.
A nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but ultimately is ineffective. Science, specifically the formal methodology of science, is distinct from learning and informal experimentation.
Theoretically anyone can enter the so-called ivory tower after putting in the work, which is different than the original metaphor. That general access becomes less true the wider we allow the wealth gap to grow and the more we tolerate moving towards a class based society.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically anyone can enter the so-called ivory tower after putting in the work, which is different than the original metaphor.
No. Intelligence, talent and an inquisitive mind are required. That is if you try to get into a real science. If you want to get into pseudo-sciences like Gender-Studies, Data-"Science" and apparently "Neuroeconomics", that may work though.
Re: (Score:2)
informal experimentation.
Re:Everything is information (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. A scientist is not somebody that makes observations. That is actually a small part of it and not really scientific. What an actual scientists (as opposed to an amateur) can do is describe the observation rigorously, repeat it, compare and determine whether it is reliable, form a theory how the observed effect works, research the literature (and _understand_ that literature!) and check whether this is a known effect or a variation of a known effect, perform additional experiments to minimize observation errors, if that confirms it is something new, describe it in a way that others can repeat the observation and verify its validity including the (preliminary) theory, verify observations by others, propose alternate theories for an effect observed, and a few things more.
That is why anybody claiming that a scientists is just "somebody that follows the scientific method" is dead wrong. And incidentally, also insulting all real scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty basic to this entire field of endeavour to first determine whether we're talking about the dopamine system (largely the same at all four corner of the elephant) or a dopamine system (which comes in two or more flavours: legs, trunks, tusks, tails, and penises—ho
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. One wonders what literature and massive amount of obviousness these "researchers" have ignored. On the other hand, "Neuroeconomist" sounds like one of the modern nonsense "Sciences". You probably have to be incompetent to get a professorship in that one.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to reply with similar snark on "neuroeconomist" but in looking it up I would have to say neuroeconomics is actually a pretty valid field of study, as it's about how humans make decisions and follow through on those decisions. Since humans regularly make ass-chappingly bad decisions, I will give this guy a pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the field may be sorely needed, but this sample of its results is not confidence-inspiring at all. Sure, that may also be due to the low quality of the people in this field.
Fuck you guys (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Researchers,
Can you not see that you're part of the problem? STOP CREATING NEW INFORMATION ASSHOLES!!!! We're NEVER going to run out if you keep making more. If you'd just go play video games or go out for a walk we'd be getting better. But nooooo, you just keep making more and more information for us to consume.
You're drug dealers, aren't you? You exist solely to extract money from us on a product you got us hooked on. Shameful.
Beating addiction (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably some argument that the most effective treatments for addiction are those that shift the user to something else that provides some similar effect but just happens to be less immediately destructive.
I'll bet this article would make for a good science fiction concept -- substance addiction that's treated by exposure to information designed to replicate the substance's effect in a neurological sense.
Oh no... (Score:1)
Know what else causes a dopamine hit? (Score:5, Funny)
Literally friggin' anything you enjoy doing.
Cue the morons... (Score:2)
Who cannot read deriding this research as obvious. Some dude on slashdot has a sig that reads something like, “Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others only gargle.” This thread is going to attract a lot of the “gargler” types.
The story doesn’t seem to be that information is yummy, it’s that they’ve found that the brain’s reward circuitry is stimulated by new information the way it is by other pleasurable things. It might seem obvious but try taking
Addiction? (Score:2)
In truth, we already know we find learning information rewarding, even when it is not useful, but it's nice to have these things we suspect backed up by some research, such as that it triggers dopamine in the brain.
It's especially nice, given that getting the knowledge that this has been researched may have just given us all a small hit, except for those people who, in the paraphrased words of Norman Juster, can swim
So... (Score:2)
I really am an information junkie!
Er, ok (Score:3)
information acts on the brain's dopamine-producing reward system in the same way as money or food.
If that means that we are a problem solving, story telling creature, then I'm fine with it.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Quit /. apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
If information is like a drug, none of us should read the article. What to do...
Do you think that any author of even one of the 58800745 posts that have been made on this website over the past 22 years has actually read a linked article?
That explains how some people are actually able (Score:3)
to watch baseball games. The endless spouting of meaningless stats - "that only the 4th time in the history of the American league that a batter has fouled out on a Tuesday in July under a crescent moon" - in an attempt to make the game interesting, must be targeting those people susceptible to that sort of mental reward mechanism.
I find the most interesting thing about baseball is the speed with which they come up with new stats after every pitch.
This Explains Wikipedia (Score:3)
This explains Wikipedia. You start by looking up "just one article." After that hit, you click on a link to one more. And then another and another. Before you know it, ten hours have passed and you're sprawled out half-reading an article about cat foot fungus. You realize you should stop, but there's a link there about nails and your hand goes to click it without you telling it to.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... paywalls are good for our brains? Everything in moderation, including information?
Who ... (Score:2)
Om nom nom nom (Score:2)
Crunch gulp snort puff ... tell me more!
No TeeVee (Score:1)
Very funny (Score:2)
Introducing the new All Fact Diet (Score:2)