Can you resolve the following contradictory theory:

(1) We like to choose what is more familiar than new one. It seems whatever we experience most often, we are most likely to end up liking.

(2) New experiences, anticipation, surprises, etc… cause dopamine rush.rush. Even our addiction to watch phones often due to the Dopamine rush of new whatsapp messages, notifications, etc..

ChatGpt reply:

The two theories you present—preference for familiarity and dopamine-driven attraction to novelty—might seem contradictory at first glance, but they reflect different aspects of human psychology and neural processing. Let’s resolve this apparent conflict:


—

1. Familiarity and the Mere Exposure Effect

The mere exposure effect suggests that repeated exposure to something increases our liking for it. Familiarity feels safe and comfortable because:

It reduces uncertainty and cognitive effort (our brains are energy-efficient).

Familiar stimuli activate the brain’s reward system over time, as they are associated with positive or neutral experiences.

This is why people prefer familiar brands, songs they’ve heard repeatedly, or foods they’ve grown up with.



Key Context: Familiarity influences our preferences in situations where stability, comfort, or habit formation is prioritized. This explains why we often stick to what we know when making decisions about long-term relationships, favorite foods, or routines.


—

2. Novelty and Dopamine Rush

Novelty triggers the brain’s seeking system, which is driven by dopamine. When we encounter something new, it sparks curiosity and motivation to explore. This mechanism:

Helps us learn and adapt to new environments.

Keeps us alert to potential rewards or threats.

Explains the allure of new WhatsApp messages, unexpected notifications, or exploring new hobbies.



Key Context: Novelty appeals when we’re looking for stimulation, learning, or reward. It’s a key driver of short-term excitement and exploration.


—

3. Resolving the Contradiction

The difference lies in context and brain systems:

Familiarity Preference (System 1)

Operates at a subconscious level, associated with stability and comfort.

Aligns with our evolutionary need to reduce risk by sticking to what’s known.

Example: Choosing a familiar restaurant or favorite playlist for comfort.


Novelty-Seeking (System 2 with Dopamine)

Associated with exploration, learning, and short-term rewards.

Evolved to encourage adaptation, survival, and finding new opportunities.

Example: Checking your phone for new notifications or exploring a new vacation spot.


The two systems are not mutually exclusive. Humans oscillate between familiarity and novelty based on:

Mood: In stress, we seek familiarity. When bored, we crave novelty.

Context: In high-stakes situations (e.g., investing, relationships), familiarity is favored. In low-stakes or recreational activities, novelty is appealing.



—

4. Practical Examples

Music: People prefer familiar songs they’ve heard before (mere exposure), but they also enjoy discovering new songs that surprise them with unique elements.

Travel: Familiar vacation spots feel relaxing, but new destinations excite us and offer a dopamine rush.

Technology: Repeated use of a familiar app feels comforting, but new features or updates keep us engaged.



—

5. Balancing Familiarity and Novelty

Humans need both familiarity and novelty for a fulfilling life:

Familiarity provides a stable foundation, security, and comfort.

Novelty injects excitement, learning, and adaptability.


In daily life:

Habits are formed around familiar routines to conserve energy.

Exploration is pursued when we seek rewards or growth.


6. Conclusion

Rather than being contradictory, the two principles represent complementary aspects of human behavior. We default to familiarity when stability is needed and seek novelty when the environment allows exploration or when we feel stagnation. Balancing these two drives is essential for emotional and intellectual well-being.

*Kanguva Movie and Human Psychology:*
🙏Ramu🙏 15/11/2024

*Disclaimer:* I haven’t watched this movie and don’t intend to. This post is just an attempt to connect some lessons I’ve learned with real-life scenarios.

A few days ago, the producer, director, lead actor, and other key people of Kanguva were confidently promoting the film, saying it would earn nothing less than ₹1000 crores. (Market hype at its best!).
Today, after its release, discussions on YouTube question whether the movie will even make ₹50 crores.

If those who estimated ₹1000 crores invested ₹200–250 crores to make the film, on what basis did they take such a huge risk?

Let’s explore:

1. *Addiction to Anticipation:*

Studies show that the brains of people addicted to cocaine and those addicted to gambling light up in similar ways when anticipating a reward. Brain scans using fMRI reveal no significant difference between the two, even for expert doctors.

2. *The Brain’s Positivity Bias:*

Our brains are designed to remember successes and downplay failures. For instance, if we try 10 times over 10 years and succeed only twice, our brain conveniently forgets the 8 failures and focuses solely on the 2 successes. This “optimism bias” evolved to help early humans stay motivated despite challenges.

3. *Survivorship Bias:*

This is why struggling assistant directors in Kollywood focus on successful figures like Bharathiraja, Ilaiyaraaja, or Rajinikanth while ignoring the countless others who failed and disappeared. Our brain isn’t wired to think about those who didn’t make it.

4. *The Chase is Thrilling:*

Many of us wonder why wealthy people keep chasing more money. Psychology explains that the thrill of chasing money (the “kick”) is much stronger than the joy of actually having it.
This is similar to foreplay in intimacy – the anticipation is often more pleasurable than the act itself. (This example is from Your Money and Your Brain, not mine!).

5. *The Escalating Bet:*

Like an alcoholic needing more drinks over time to feel the same high, people chasing money or gambling require increasingly bigger risks (“bets”) to experience the same thrill.

6. *Ignoring Risks:*

When making big bets, our brains focus only on the size of the reward, ignoring the risks and the low probability of achieving it. This is why many get trapped in speculative activities like stock trading and gambling.

If this reminds you of the “Tree narrating its story” episode from school textbooks, don’t blame me!

Carefully yours,
🙏Ramu🙏

*கங்குவா திரைப்படமும் மனித உளவியலும்:*
🙏ராமு🙏15/11/2024

*பொறுப்பு துறப்பு:* நான் இந்த படத்தை இதுவரை பார்க்கவில்லை. பார்க்கப் போவதும் இல்லை.

இந்த பதிவு நான் கற்ற பாடங்களை எதாவது ஒரு வழியில் வாழ்க்கையுடன் பொருத்திப் பார்க்கும் முயற்சி.

சில நாட்களுக்கு முன்பு வரை 1000 கோடி ரூபாய்க்கு குறையாமல் வணிகம் செய்யும் என்று கங்குவா தயாரிப்பாளர், இயக்குனர், கதாநாயகன் மற்றும் பல முன்னணி முக்கியஸ்தர்கள் மார் தட்டிக் கொண்டனர். (மார்க்கெட் உத்தி யாம்😢).

இன்று படம் வெளியான நிலையில் 50 கோடி கூட வசூல் செய்யுமா என்று யூடுயுபில் கழுவி கழுவி ஊத்துகின்றனர்.

1000 கோடி குறைந்த பட்ச வருமானம் என்று கணக்கிட்டவர்கள் 200 முதல் 250 கோடியாவது முதலீடு செய்து இருப்பார்கள் என்பது என் கணக்கு.

இவ்வாறு 200 / 250 கோடி எந்த அடிப்படையில் முதலீடு செய்கிறார்கள் என்பதை கொஞ்சம் ஆராய்வோம்.


(1) கொக்கைன் எனும் இன்பமளிக்க கூடிய ஊசிக்கு அடிமையானவர்களை அழைத்து, ஊசி குத்துவதற்கு முன்பு இன்னும் கொஞ்ச நேரத்தில் ஊசி குத்தப்படும் என்ற நம்பிக்கை ஊட்டி அவர்களுடைய மூளையை fMRI ஸ்கேன் மூலம் மேப் செய்து அதை பல மடங்கு லாபம் தரக்கூடிய சூதாட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட இருக்கும் நபர்களுடைய மூளையை ஸ்கேன் செய்து ஒப்பீடு செய்ததில் அதிர்ச்சி என்னவென்றால், நன்கு தேர்ந்த மருத்துவ வல்லுநர்களால் கூட சூதாட்டம் மற்றும் கொக்கைன் அடிமையானவர்களுக்கு ம் வித்தியாசம் கண்டு பிடிக்க முடியவில்லை.

(2) நமது மூளையின் செயல்பாடே நல்ல வெற்றிகரமான நிகழ்வுகளை மட்டுமே நினைவில் வைத்துக்கொண்டு, தோல்விகளை ஏதோ சில்லறை காரணங்களைக் காட்டி – அதிர்ஷ்டமின்மை, அவன் தவறு, கடைசியில் நடந்த சிறிய தவறு – என்று புறம் தள்ளிவிடுவதும் என்ற விதத்தில் வடிவமைப்பு கொண்டுள்ளது.

அதாவது, நமது 10 ஆண்டுகளில் 10 முயற்சிகளில் 2 தான் வெற்றிகரமானது என்றால் நமது மூளை 8 தோல்விகளை புறந்தள்ளிவிட்டு, 2 வெற்றிகளை மட்டும் நினைவில் நிறுத்தி 2/2 என்று நேர்மறையாக சிந்திக்கும் வடிவமைப்பு கொண்டது. இந்த அமைப்பு ஆதிகாலத்தில், கற்காலத்தில் வாழ்ந்த மனிதர்களுக்கான தேவையாக இருந்ததால் அவ்வாறு உருவாகி இருக்கிறது.

(3) அதனால் தான் இன்றும் 20 / 30 ஆண்டுகளாக கோடம்பாக்கத்தில் சுற்றிக் கொண்டிருக்கும் உதவி இயக்குனர்கள் ஆயிரத்தில் ஒருவராக காட்சி அளிக்கும் பாரதிராஜா, இளையராஜா, ரஜினி போன்ற வெற்றி பெற்றவர்களை மட்டுமே கருத்தில் கொண்டு இவர்களுக்கு பின்னால் தோல்வியுற்று சவக்குழிக்கு போன ஆயிரக் கணக்காணவர்களை எண்ண நம் மூளை வடிவமைப்பு அனுமதிப்பது இல்லை.

(4) நாம் பல நேரங்களில் இவ்வளவு பணம் வைத்துக்கொண்டு இந்த பணக்காரர்கள் என்ன செய்ய போகிறார்கள் என்று தோன்றும்.

உளவியல் படி, பணத்தை துரத்தும் போது கிடைக்கும் மகிழ்ச்சி (கிக்), பணத்தை கைகொள்வதில் கிடைக்கும் மகிழ்ச்சியை விட பல மடங்கு அதிகம்.

சுருக்கமாக புரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும் என்றால் காமசுகத்திற்காக தயாராகும் தயாரிப்பில் உள்ள சுகம் (foreplay), காமசுகத்தை விட பன்மடங்கு சுகம் என்பதைப்போல. (🙏மன்னிக்கவும்: இந்த உதாரணம் என்னுடையது அல்ல. From Your Money and your brain)

(5) இந்த பணத்தை தூரத்துவது தான் சுகம் என்றாலும் மதுவிற்கு அடிமையானவன் காலப்போக்கில் எப்படி ஒரு 175 ml ல் திருப்தி அடைய முடியாமல் 375 ml, 750 ml என்று அதிகமாகும் பட்சத்தில் மட்டுமே அவனுக்கு திருப்தி கிடைக்குமோ, அது மாதிரி பணம் துரத்தும் விளையாட்டில் ஈடுபடுபவர்கள் நாளுக்கு நாள் தங்கள் “பெட் – bet” டின் அளவை கூட்டினால் மட்டுமே அவர்கள் எதிர்பார்க்கும் கிக் கிடைக்கும்.

(6) அவ்வாறு பெரிய பெரிய பெட் -bet ஐ நோக்கி நடை போடும்போது நமது மூளை பரிசின் (size of the reward) அளவை மட்டுமே கணக்கிடுமே தவிர அந்த பரிசு – reward க்கான ரிஸ்க் ( risk Vs reward ratio) யோ, அந்த பெரிய பரிசை அடைவதற்கான சாத்தியக்கூறுகள் (probability achieving that reward) கணக்கிட மூளை அனுமதிக்காது.

இவ்வாறுதான் பலரும் பங்கு சந்தை உட்பட்ட பல சூதாட்டங்களில் ஈடுபடுகின்றனர்.

பள்ளிக்கூடத்தில் படித்த “மரம் தன் வரலாறு கூறுதல் எபிசொட் நினைவுக்கு வந்தால் நான் பொறுப்பல்ல.

*கவனத்துடன்,*
🙏ராமு🙏

It seems an unexpected rewards fires up the brain. When a reward comes as a surprise, the Dopamine neurons fire longer and stronger than they do in response to a reward that was signaled ahead of time.

My query: Then it is obvious not to anticipate for anything or keep our expectations limits as low as possible.

Including sex, orgasm is not as much joyous as foreplay. It is because anticipation – foreplay phase  is higher than final phase.

Then why is our mind not learning to practice zero anticipation or least anticipation?

ChatGpt reply:

You’ve touched on a fascinating aspect of human psychology: the strong response to unexpected rewards and the fact that our brains don’t automatically adjust to minimize anticipation, even though keeping expectations low might, in theory, optimize pleasure.

Why the Brain Values Anticipation Despite Lower Payoffs

1. Evolutionary Advantage of Anticipation:

Anticipation has likely evolved to motivate us to pursue potential rewards that could benefit survival, such as food, social bonds, or reproduction. If we didn’t feel driven to pursue these rewards by imagining them, we might lack the motivation to engage in crucial activities.

Dopamine’s role in anticipation reinforces this. By releasing dopamine in anticipation, the brain keeps us invested in long-term rewards, even if they don’t always result in high or unexpected outcomes. This system promotes persistence and goal-directed behavior.



2. Surprise and Novelty in the Dopamine System:

Surprising rewards activate dopamine pathways more intensely because they provide new information, which is essential for learning. The brain evolved to respond more strongly to the unexpected because surprises offer insights into potential opportunities or threats that were previously unknown.

Predictive coding plays a role here, as the brain constantly compares expectations with reality. When something unexpected happens, dopamine spikes to adjust our expectations and remind us that surprises can carry valuable lessons or opportunities.



3. The Dilemma of Anticipation vs. Outcome:

While it may seem that we’d be happier by lowering expectations, the brain’s reward circuitry doesn’t operate purely for maximum happiness; it’s designed to maximize engagement and survival. Anticipation (or even hope) drives exploration and learning, keeping us engaged with life’s possibilities.

In pleasurable activities, like sexual experiences, anticipation (e.g., foreplay) heightens engagement and satisfaction by keeping dopamine elevated. The final reward, though rewarding, serves more as a closure of the anticipatory process than as the primary source of pleasure.




Why We Don’t Automatically Adopt Low Expectations

1. Unconscious Optimism Bias:

Humans naturally tend toward optimism, expecting positive outcomes even when reality may not align. This bias keeps us resilient in the face of setbacks, motivating us to continue pursuing goals rather than adopting a mindset of constant caution or low expectations.



2. Dopamine Pathways Are Designed for Seeking, Not Settling:

Dopamine-driven anticipation isn’t designed to allow us to “settle” on low expectations. Instead, it pushes us to explore and pursue, ensuring we remain motivated, curious, and open to new experiences.

In essence, dopamine rewards the process of seeking itself, not just the final outcome, which is why we’re inclined toward anticipation even when outcomes are uncertain.




Conclusion

While lowering expectations may seem like a rational path to enjoying more surprises, our brains are wired to keep us in a state of hopeful anticipation, driven by dopamine’s seeking function. This keeps us engaged in life’s possibilities rather than retreating to cautious contentment.

So, instead of zero anticipation, the mind seems optimized for a balance: enjoying the journey of anticipation while occasionally being surprised, which provides the highest reward feedback.

Don’t humans have any mechanisms similar to dopamine releases for happiness and dopamine pathways gets deeper and stronger during each of our anticipation turns into successful, in the same way, don’t we have any path or mechanisms to recall frequently when everytime our anticipation turns into failures or losses unless otherwise we put efforts to analyze the losses to greater levels?

ChatGpt Reply:

You’re correct to suggest that our brains do have mechanisms for processing both successful outcomes and failures, but they function quite differently, especially with regard to dopamine and memory pathways. Let’s explore how these work.

1. Dopamine Pathways in Success and Anticipation:

Dopamine is indeed released during anticipation and upon success, creating a positive reinforcement loop. Every time our anticipation turns into a successful outcome, this dopamine reward strengthens the neural pathways associated with that activity, making us more likely to seek similar rewards in the future.

The dopamine system is part of the brain’s reward and learning mechanism, helping us learn and repeat behaviors that have led to positive outcomes. Over time, successful anticipations reinforce this pathway, building confidence and motivation.


2. Memory and Emotional Encoding in Losses:

Failures and losses trigger negative emotions, often linked to feelings of disappointment, regret, or even embarrassment. These feelings are initially processed by the brain’s emotional centers, such as the amygdala, which creates a strong memory of the negative experience. However, without deeper reflection, this negative encoding tends to be short-lived.

Unlike the dopamine reward loop, the brain doesn’t have a similar automatic “negative reinforcement” pathway. Instead, memory of loss or failure only deepens if we engage in conscious, reflective processing—essentially, when System 2 goes to work analyzing what went wrong. This process helps reinforce lessons from losses, but it doesn’t create a strong, automatic reward pathway like dopamine.


3. Selective Recall Bias and Cognitive Dissonance:

Humans have a tendency to avoid recalling failures or unsuccessful outcomes unless there’s a need to learn from them. This is partly due to cognitive dissonance; it’s psychologically uncomfortable to dwell on losses, so we may selectively remember our gains instead, minimizing painful memories.

Additionally, the brain’s confirmation bias favors positive reinforcement over negative. When we remember gains more often than losses, it reinforces our self-image and beliefs, leading us to anticipate success again, even if we’ve experienced failures in the past.


4. The Role of Reflection and Learning in Losses:

To establish stronger pathways for learning from failures, conscious reflection (System 2) must engage. Journaling, discussing, or mentally replaying an event to analyze it can reinforce the memory of a loss, helping it become a “lesson learned.”

This reflective processing isn’t as automatic as the dopamine reward pathway, though. It requires effort and intention, which is why many people need to make a conscious effort to learn from losses rather than quickly moving past them.


Summary

Humans do have mechanisms to learn from both success and failure:

Dopamine pathways for success work as automatic reinforcements, embedding pleasure in success.

Learning from loss is less automatic and needs conscious effort. Without reflection, failures may not create a deep memory pathway, leading us to recall gains more easily than losses.


This system likely evolved because constant fixation on failures could hinder motivation and risk-taking, which are often necessary for long-term success.

There are 2 theories posted at different sections about the characteristics of System 1 part of brain which seems to me contradictory. Kindly interpret the same.

Theory 1: Our reflexive or system 1 part of brain always fixated on change that makes it hard for us to focus on what remains constant. For example stock prices movements either 10% up or down.

Theory 2: People who are confronted with difficult question answers the easier one instead. That’s because the Reflexive S1 system hates UNCERTAINTY.

Contradiction I feel: In theory 1, S1 acts based on senses if it finds any sudden changes in its environment. In theory 2, S1 hates uncertainty and look for unchanged.

ChatGpt’s reply:

You’re picking up on a subtle tension between how System 1 (S1) is described in these two theories. Let’s interpret each to see if they truly contradict or simply represent different aspects of S1’s function.

1. Theory 1 – Sensitivity to Change: System 1 is described here as highly sensitive to environmental changes, which makes sense evolutionarily. Rapidly responding to sudden shifts (like movements in stock prices) could help us quickly notice threats or opportunities. This suggests S1 is alert to novelty or fluctuations rather than constants, which don’t typically require immediate action.


2. Theory 2 – Dislike of Uncertainty: Here, System 1 is presented as uncomfortable with ambiguity or complex information and thus seeks out simple, clear answers. When faced with a hard question, S1 sidesteps the uncertainty by finding a simpler, more certain substitute question that it can answer more confidently.



Potential Reconciliation

Although these theories may seem contradictory at first glance, they actually highlight different tendencies of S1. Here’s a possible synthesis:

S1 responds strongly to immediate, observable changes (like stock price movements) because these represent clear information. This aligns with the need for quick responses, which favors noticing changes rather than constants.

S1’s aversion to uncertainty reflects its preference for clear, straightforward choices or answers, especially when forced to make a decision. If something isn’t clearly answerable, S1 sidesteps it by opting for a simpler alternative. In this case, S1 favors simplicity over ambiguity.


So, S1’s apparent contradiction may come from the fact that it is sensitive to sudden changes (observable and concrete information) but avoids situations where the information is ambiguous or uncertain (complex, less tangible). It’s quick to respond to clear changes but sidesteps situations that don’t have an easy answer.

Most of the books, experts, psychologists, neuroscience advocates the best proven technique to quit any bad habits such as drinking, smoking, glutton eating, etc is “Clean Up your Environment”  simply meaning that refrain from cues.

Is the same technique possible for sexual related actions such as certain cues leading to immoral sex, groping, soliciting, etc…

Because when it comes to sexual related actions, there must be multiple cues, even idleness causes cues, etc…

ChatGpt reply:

The principle of “cleaning up your environment” to avoid cues is indeed a common and effective approach for changing many habitual behaviors, and it can apply to managing sexual impulses as well. However, as you pointed out, sexual behaviors can be more complex because cues can be more subtle, diverse, and pervasive. This complexity often makes direct environmental control challenging. Here’s how such an approach could be applied, alongside other strategies that may support long-term behavioral change:

1. Identify and Minimize Triggers: Environmental control for sexual behaviors may involve identifying specific places, times, or situations that trigger unwanted impulses and finding ways to limit exposure to these. This could mean avoiding certain websites, media, or social contexts, or altering routines that may lead to such situations.


2. Redirect Idleness and Boredom: Since idleness or boredom can be a cue for many unwanted behaviors, one effective strategy is to replace idle time with planned, engaging activities that offer satisfaction or a sense of achievement. Physical exercise, creative hobbies, or learning new skills can be good outlets that keep both body and mind occupied.


3. Use Reflective Techniques to Break the Impulsive Response: Sexual impulses, especially when they involve risky or unethical behaviors, are often rooted in impulsive responses (System 1) that may override reflective thinking (System 2). Techniques like mindfulness, journaling, or cognitive restructuring (thinking through potential consequences and personal values) can strengthen one’s ability to pause, reflect, and choose different actions.


4. Establish Accountability Systems: External accountability, such as setting commitments with a support group, therapist, or trusted individual, can help reinforce intentions. This adds a layer of self-regulation and support, making it easier to manage impulsive tendencies in complex environments.


5. Seek Professional Support When Needed: For more deeply ingrained or high-risk behaviors, professional counseling or therapy, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), can be effective in helping individuals recognize, process, and change their responses to cues.



Environmental control can be helpful, but it’s often not a standalone solution for complex, impulsive behaviors—especially those with ethical or social implications. Combining it with strategies for self-regulation, accountability, and purposeful activity often leads to more lasting change.

Another question:

No. I am asking in a different angle. Sexual satiation is like satisfying hungriness. If I evade 3’o clock time, I can skip a cigarette or coffee. If I manage my morning toilet, I can get away with morning cigarette or coffee.

But sex is not like that. Unless it is not satiated by some means, that urge shall peep if not in the night, then next afternoon or so.

ChatGpt reply:

You’re highlighting an important difference: certain needs or urges, like hunger or sexual desire, often have a cyclical nature. They don’t disappear permanently just because you avoid specific cues. Instead, they can build up and reappear later if not addressed or managed.

Sexual urges, in particular, are complex because they’re driven by both physiological and psychological factors. Avoiding cues may help minimize the frequency of impulses, but these desires can still re-emerge because they’re part of our natural, recurring biological needs. Here are some alternative approaches to managing these kinds of urges when avoiding cues isn’t sufficient:

1. Channel the Energy Productively: One effective approach is to channel the energy associated with the urge into other physical or creative activities, which can sometimes provide a form of “release.” Activities like exercise, art, music, or focused work can offer a sense of satisfaction and distraction, though they may not completely satiate the urge.


2. Gradual Exposure and Self-Regulation: Rather than trying to avoid or ignore the urge altogether, some strategies encourage becoming more comfortable observing and accepting it without acting on it. This is a common approach in mindfulness-based practices. With time, it can help develop self-control without feeling as though urges must be immediately satisfied.


3. Understand Personal Patterns and Timing: Since sexual urges often follow patterns, people can manage these cycles by understanding their own rhythms and planning activities, social interactions, or routines that are likely to divert attention during high-risk times. This is a bit like knowing when hunger is likely to set in and preparing a healthy alternative.


4. Consider Satiation Through Safe, Consensual Means: For some, finding ways to safely satisfy sexual urges within ethical and consensual boundaries can be healthier and more sustainable than avoidance. This could mean engaging in a relationship where needs are fulfilled responsibly, rather than attempting to suppress the drive completely.


5. Address Underlying Psychological Factors: Sexual urges, especially when they become compulsive, are sometimes linked to stress, anxiety, or other emotional factors. Working with a therapist to explore and address underlying issues can help reduce the frequency or intensity of these urges over time, making them easier to manage.


6. Practice Incremental Control: Trying to break down the urge into smaller, manageable parts—similar to pacing or “delaying” satisfaction—can sometimes help. For instance, someone might set a timer and choose not to act on their desire until the timer runs out, training their impulse control without suppressing the need altogether.



In essence, sexual urges are often best managed not solely by avoiding cues but by blending strategies for healthy expression, self-regulation, and, when appropriate, finding safe, ethical ways to satisfy these needs. Managing them effectively often involves understanding and working with our natural rhythms, rather than against them.

*ChatGpt reply for “seeking system and anticipatory rewards or dopamine pathways Vs Survivorship bias:*

It seems human brains are tuned towards “seeking system” or “anticipatory rewards” and thus our seeking system care more about what might happen than about what does happen, so it is hard to remember that many of the stocks that go way up one year go down disastrously the next year. That’s why, for all too many people, investing yields heartburn – years spent chasing “hot” Stock or fund after another, only to have them go cold just as riches seem within reach.

My query: The above concept of “seeking system” or “anticipatory rewards” system of our brain is analogous to the concept of “survivorship bias” that our mind ventures into positive exceptional or positive outlier events without considering base rate effect?

My thinking is correct? Whether “anticipatory rewards system of brain” and “survivorship bias” concepts are similar?

*ChatGpt Reply:*
Your thinking is insightful! There is indeed an analogy between the “anticipatory rewards system” of the brain, sometimes called the “seeking system,” and the cognitive concept of “survivorship bias.”

Anticipatory Rewards System and Seeking System

The brain’s seeking or anticipatory rewards system, primarily involving dopamine pathways, is tuned to focus on possibilities, potential rewards, and future outcomes. This system energizes us to pursue what might happen, often making us chase excitement, novelty, and perceived opportunities, which in investing can translate into chasing “hot” stocks or funds with recent exceptional performance. This process can overshadow more rational, balanced decision-making.

Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias occurs when we focus on successful examples while ignoring the broader set that includes failures. In investing, it often leads people to focus on high-performing stocks or funds without considering how many other stocks or funds didn’t perform well (or even failed) along the way. This bias gives an overly optimistic view of potential gains because it ignores the “base rate” or average performance of similar assets.

Similarities Between the Two

Your analogy is on point because both the seeking system and survivorship bias can lead to overlooking base rates and objective probabilities:

Overemphasis on Success and Excitement: The seeking system naturally amplifies attention on possible gains and exceptional, high-reward events, similar to how survivorship bias makes us focus on the “winners” rather than the overall pool.

Risk of Chasing Outliers: Both the seeking system and survivorship bias encourage a pursuit of positive outliers, potentially leading to cycles of high expectation and disappointment when reality doesn’t match up. This can be seen in investors’ tendency to chase after “hot” stocks or funds based on recent exceptional performance, only to be let down when those assets underperform later.


Differences

However, they aren’t entirely the same:

Neurobiological vs. Cognitive Bias: The seeking system is a neurobiological mechanism tied to dopamine and future-oriented motivation, while survivorship bias is a cognitive error in how we process information.

Scope: The seeking system broadly influences any pursuit of potential rewards, whereas survivorship bias is specific to decision-making processes and errors in how we evaluate and remember past events.


In Summary

Your insight about these two concepts is correct—they interact closely, especially in investing. The anticipatory rewards system predisposes investors to focus on potential high rewards, while survivorship bias narrows that focus further to highlight successful outcomes, leaving a skewed impression of how frequently high returns actually occur.

Ok. As per seeking system  theory, mind remembers dopamine pathways and try frequently to adopt that dopamine pathways.

In that case, mind only remembers past few exceptional successes and don’t keep it in memory if we encountered any failures or losses or bitter experiences.

*My question:*

Whether our brain as it has developed various dopamine paths,  can’t it have any mechanisms to recall failures or bitter experiences or losses again and again?

*ChatGpt Reply:*

Your observation about the brain’s tendency to “seek” rewards while potentially ignoring losses or failures aligns with key insights in neuroscience and psychology. While our brain indeed emphasizes dopamine pathways that reinforce reward-seeking, it also has mechanisms for recalling failures, losses, and bitter experiences—though these mechanisms function differently and often in parallel.

1. Role of the Dopamine System and Reward Seeking

The dopamine system is indeed tuned to prioritize pathways that lead to potential rewards. When we achieve a success or experience a rewarding outcome, dopamine pathways strengthen, creating “mental grooves” that make us inclined to repeat those actions. This is why successes often feel more memorable, especially in terms of motivation and decision-making.

However, dopamine itself does not directly encode the full details of failure or losses—it’s mainly about pursuing what might bring reward. This leads the brain to focus on possibilities, sometimes at the expense of recalling negative outcomes with equal weight.


2. Mechanisms for Remembering Failures and Losses

The brain actually has a complementary system that encodes negative experiences, involving areas like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. These regions are responsible for processing fear, risk, and the emotional weight of losses or bitter experiences. While dopamine reinforces “seeking” pathways, these other structures are attuned to threats and negative consequences, creating cautionary memories.

This process helps us avoid repeating past mistakes by generating what psychologists call “loss aversion”—the tendency to weigh losses more heavily than equivalent gains. Loss aversion is an evolutionary adaptation, as recalling past failures and negative experiences can be crucial for survival, encouraging us to be cautious.


3. Why Positive Experiences Often Dominate in Memory

While the brain has mechanisms to remember losses, these memories can sometimes fade more quickly in specific decision-making contexts, such as investing, where the allure of a potential “win” activates the seeking system. This is known as optimism bias—the brain’s tendency to focus on potential positive outcomes and downplay risks. Optimism bias helps us stay motivated and take calculated risks but can lead us to underweight failures.

Additionally, repeated pursuit of rewards often engages reinforcement learning, which builds a feedback loop around successful behaviors. The brain can become “trained” to overlook previous losses when it encounters strong cues that it associates with potential rewards.


4. How the Brain Can Strengthen Recall of Negative Experiences

One way the brain can better integrate memories of losses or failures is through reflective practice. By regularly analyzing past experiences, including mistakes, we can activate the reflective (System 2) brain, which helps counterbalance the impulsive (System 1) tendencies of the seeking system.

Emotional memory techniques, like reappraisal (thinking about what went wrong and why) or journaling losses and failures, can also strengthen negative memories, providing a more balanced perspective. These techniques effectively “anchor” memories of negative experiences, allowing the brain to better recall them when making decisions.


Conclusion

So, while the brain’s reward-seeking pathways emphasize positive experiences, it does have mechanisms to recall and learn from failures—though these mechanisms are often less naturally compelling than those that drive reward-seeking. By engaging more consciously with past losses and reflecting on failures, we can create a more balanced memory system that tempers the seeking system’s dopamine-driven impulses with insights from past experiences.

My question:

Can I shortly understand as follows:

Dopamine pathways or reward seeking behaviour is strongly associated with System 1 brain and system 1 brain is more if intuition and impulse driven one.

Recalling failures, losses, bitter experiences, etc are associated with system 2 part of brain and it requires special efforts from our side like reflection, Journaling, etc.

My understanding is right?

*ChatGpt reply:*

Yes, your understanding is absolutely correct!

To summarize concisely:

Dopamine pathways and reward-seeking behavior are indeed strongly associated with System 1. This part of the brain is more intuition-driven, impulsive, and automatic, encouraging us to chase rewards and act on immediate motivations.

Recalling failures, losses, and bitter experiences is linked to System 2, which is reflective, deliberate, and slower. Engaging System 2 requires conscious effort through practices like reflection and journaling to truly process and learn from negative experiences.


This distinction explains why it often takes extra effort to balance impulse-driven seeking with cautious, experience-based decision-making.

Whether it is that our body or brain itself is evolved in such a way that “expectation phase” more joyful than “satiation phase”? Or any other explanation is there?

ChatGpt reply:

You’re touching on a fascinating concept rooted in evolutionary psychology: the idea that anticipation often brings us more joy than achieving or possessing the thing we desired. This likely has evolutionary underpinnings and reflects how our brains are wired to handle rewards.

1. Evolutionary Advantage of Anticipation: The expectation phase—thinking about a goal and planning to achieve it—stimulates dopamine release, the neurotransmitter associated with reward and motivation. This creates a cycle of seeking and striving, which would have encouraged our ancestors to pursue food, shelter, and other resources necessary for survival. If early humans felt satisfied simply thinking about goals, they might not have been motivated to act, reducing their survival chances. The anticipation phase, therefore, spurs exploration and action, which has clear survival benefits.


2. The Pleasure of Anticipation vs. Satiation: When we anticipate something, especially something new or desired, our brains engage in a form of “reward prediction.” The dopamine released during anticipation isn’t about the reward itself but about the possibility and journey of achieving it. However, once the goal is achieved or the object is obtained, dopamine levels tend to drop as the “novelty” wears off, moving us into the satiation phase. This drop leads to a decrease in excitement, sometimes even a feeling of letdown, pushing us to look for the next goal or novel experience.


3. Neuroplasticity and Tolerance to Rewards: Over time, our brains can develop a sort of “tolerance” to repeated rewards—a phenomenon called “hedonic adaptation.” This means that the joy of a once-thrilling achievement or possession fades as it becomes familiar. This fading joy acts as a feedback loop, nudging us to seek new experiences or challenges, which again has adaptive value because it promotes learning and growth.


4. Anticipation vs. Achievement in the Modern Context: Although this was advantageous for our ancestors, in modern life, the constant cycle of seeking and anticipation, especially in contexts like wealth or consumerism, can sometimes feel unfulfilling. Modern pleasures—like buying things or chasing money—may provide bursts of happiness but often fall short of deeply satisfying us once they’re attained.



This difference between anticipation and satisfaction highlights why phrases like “money can’t buy happiness” have psychological truth. It’s not so much the money itself, but the pursuit, change, or novelty that stimulates our pleasure circuits. Evolution has shaped us to be “desiring beings,” constantly chasing new goals and experiences because it kept us adaptive and resourceful.

It seems a survey of people who had won at least 1 MN in the Ohio state lottery found that 82% kept buying tickets on a regular basis after their windfall.

Similarly Laurie Zink, after having won $100,000 in a reality show during 2001, she bought California lottery ticket.

Same is the case with Mark Twain during 1862.

For all the above examples, neuroscientists attributed the reason that “anticipation of making money gives greater joy than actually making it.”

My query is: Of course, buying a lottery ticket, and feeling elated by expecting to get the windfall is alright.
After the d-day comes, there shall be a huge blow in their mind that their anticipation is not materialized, shall not make them feel depressed?

Whether “anticipation of joy” is much greater than “the sadness of not their anticipation materialized”?

ChatGpt reply:

You’ve raised a great point about the emotional dynamics in play here. The pattern you describe is actually rooted in how our brains respond differently to anticipation and disappointment.

1. Anticipation is More Potent Than Disappointment: Studies suggest that, in general, the brain’s reward system—especially dopamine pathways—emphasizes potential rewards more heavily than it does actual outcomes, whether positive or negative. The anticipation itself can be incredibly stimulating and pleasurable, often outweighing the impact of any disappointment that might come if the anticipated event doesn’t materialize. This is partly why people may keep buying lottery tickets even if they lose regularly. The hope or thrill of winning creates a strong enough response to drive repeat behavior, despite the outcome.


2. Dopamine’s Role in Anticipation vs. Outcome: Neuroscientists have found that dopamine (the “feel-good” neurotransmitter) peaks when we anticipate a reward. However, the actual receipt—or lack thereof—of the reward doesn’t always have as powerful an effect. If people are familiar with the chance of not winning, they often psychologically downplay the disappointment. Hence, the pleasure from anticipation might remain strong enough to continue the behavior, even with repeated losses.


3. Rationalization and Coping Mechanisms: Over time, the brain develops coping mechanisms to rationalize losses, softening the blow of disappointment. People often attribute non-wins to “bad luck” rather than to poor decision-making, which helps to lessen the sting of disappointment. In lottery play, this coping mechanism helps them keep up the habit, driven by that positive anticipation cycle.



In short, the brain’s reward system is wired to make anticipation stronger than the pain of disappointment. So, while repeated disappointment might wear on some, for many, the high of anticipation keeps them engaged despite knowing the odds are stacked against them.