And really, not even the dogs.

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

That was me! Thank you, Ms. Davulis.

Paper says: "...individuals with SUD exhibit marked deficits in liking. This may explain why patients with SUD experience a reduction in the ability to experience pleasure from natural rewards."

Nope. That is not what incentive-sensitization theory says, nor is it what SUDs usually entail.

Very anecdotally, I feel I've seen it, but I agree that it's not well established empirically.

Without having looked for it, we found evidence for what's sometimes called "aversive transmission": people who see the effects of addiction in their parents may sometimes make a point of avoiding risky substance-related behaviors. Humans do things that nonhumans don't do.

For me, the transformation of a grim industrial/parking space underneath I-83 into a venue for many dozens of local artists/craftspeople was...inspiring, lovely. It was also noisy (due in part to the nearby bandstand), but that was OK. I admired the act.

Pinker's assertion about trigger warnings (that they "can do more harm than good") is based on research that doesn't generalize to the intended situations, as I told the author five years ago.

Just looked at a questionnaire that has: "I feel blue"; "I feel downhearted"; "I feel sad"; "I feel gloomy"; "I feel depressed"; "I feel low." Plus: "I am quick tempered"; "I have a fiery temper"; "I am a hot-headed person"; "I fly off the handle."

"Dear participant: I don’t respect your time."

Correction: Woodlawn, not Catonsville.

It's great to see moves toward assessing SUD symptoms/criteria in their dynamic flux, potentially as outcome measures to match inclusion criteria. I did that with the old SDSS (a DSM-IV-based addiction interview with a past-30-day time frame) but this is more sophisticated and more promising.