Book Built on Sand
I found Daniel Lieberman and Michael Long’s The Molecule of More to be both thought provoking in the way it portrayed the role of dopamine in a wide range of human behaviors and simultaneously reckless in the way it presented studies to back their claims. Lieberman and Long’s explanation of dopamine activity as an indicator of possibility and anticipation rather than a marker of pleasure[1] is helpful in dispelling a common misperception of dopamine. This understanding of dopamine seems to set the foundation for the rest of the book.
Thought Provoking
The phenomena of being driven by unexpected reward was dubbed “reward prediction error” by Lieberman and Long[2]. Outside of the study that brought it into scientific and popular discourse, the motivational application of “reward prediction error” abounds in society around us. I imagine it’s why I get excited when I find a 20 dollar bill in my pocket. I haven’t gained more money, but it was unexpected so it sets off a dopamine response. Game developers also understand this phenomenon. My brother, who has over 10 years working on the strategy and product side of various games used to tell me that the retention rate (how many people who downloaded the game would keep playing months later) of games with a sense of randomness is much higher than ones that are entirely skill based. And it makes sense. Entirely skill based games probably have a very low reward prediction errors. You can easily tell if you will lose or win, or at least reasonably predict what outcome to expect. I imagine this is also why college basketball fans love the Cinderella stories that are brough on during March Madness. There is an element of randomness to a one-and-done tournament that makes every heart-wrenching loss drops your stomach lower and every epic underdog win makes you soar higher. There is an abundance of reward prediction error.
Much of what Lieberman and Long talk about bleeds over into basic economics concepts as well. For example, if dopamine’s job is to “maximize resources that will be available to us in the future”[3] rather than just the amount of pleasure it produces now, it echoes the economic principle that people, rather than acting to maximize current value, will make decisions that maximize utility (which can include both present and future benefit). Contrary to Lieberman and Long[4], economists would characterize this as people acting rationally. Even further, the authors mention what economists call diminishing marginal returns, the idea that the more of something you predictably get, the less extra utility you receive from an additional unit. As someone who studied both biology and economics, the biochemical explanation that drives decision making is fascinating.
Reckless
The Molecule of More epitomizes what I find most cringe-inducing about popular science books. Almost from the get-go, the authors choose to make bold claims using ambiguous language around what studies that might be citing.
“”It seemed more likely that the evolutionary processes that harnessed dopamine were driven by the need to motivate survival and reproductive activity. So they replaced cocaine with food, expecting to see the same effect. What they found surprised everyone. It was the beginning of the end for dopamine as the pleasure molecule. Dopamine, they discovered, isn’t about pleasure at all. Dopamine delivers a feeling much more influential.”[5]
In the above passage, the authors employ almost a “click-bait” strategy, saying that the scientists who studied human drug addicts replaced the cocaine and sugar that they were administered with food. Oddly, they never tell us exactly what it was the found. Even worse, the authors never revisit this study that they make reference to, instead opting later to refer to a study scientists performed on rats.
What I find to be particularly reckless about this book is the way it references studies done without properly citing these studies. One particularly egregious example comes from the second chapter: “Dopamine does the opposite. Human beings who have genes that produce high levels of dopamine have the highest number of sexual partners and the lowest age of first sexual intercourse.”[6]They make a bold, eye-catching (especially because it involves sex) claim without backing it up. The study they reference is one done on voles. The experiment did not even involve dopamine, rather it involved the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin. The authors, however, make the jump from voles to humans and from oxytocin and vasopressin to dopamine.
Admittedly, the authors provide a long list of “recommended reading” at the end of each chapter that I haven’t read through. But I found the constant use of such a strategy by the authors to be reckless, or at best, lazy. Their inability to trace their arguments to peer reviewed studies clearly severely hinders what is otherwise a fun and though-provoking book.
[1] Daniel Z. Lieberman and Michael Long, The Molecule of More (Dallas: BenBella Books, Inc.), 2018, 5.
[2] Ibid, 6
[3] Ibid, 9
[4] Ibid, 29
[5] Ibid, 3
[6] Ibid, 18
About the Author
Caleb Lu
11 responses to “Book Built on Sand”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow! Go Caleb!
Thank you for your perspective on this book. I appreciate you taking a deep look and analyzing the book and studies (Bravo). I decided to spend lest time reading the books this semester. But after this post, I am inspired to go deeper.
Thank you for inspiring me. Well done my friend.
Greg, thanks for the encouragement! Far be it from me to cause anyone to spend any more time reading than they either have to or want to! I probably have a negative bias toward popular science books, so excuse my likely needlessly dour take on the book!
So, I am hearing that science books are really not your thing? I myself have lived through learning about many of these studies in my study of Social Work. I can see some theories, and others seem so unrealistic. I wonder how you would have restructured his delivery if you could, to have it be less reckless?
Shonell, appreciate your question! I think if they had simply cited the studies that they reference in their book, it would’ve been really helpful. It just seems like if you have a lot of good studies that back up your claim, it doesn’t really make sense not to cite them directly.
I will again say that I didn’t read through all their suggested readings, so perhaps it’s all there! If it is, it would be even more strange to me why they didn’t cite them.
Caleb, thank you for an insightful and thought provoking post. I found this book interesting and readable. I wonder if the lack of citation was perhaps intentional on the part of the authors to make it more accessible to non scientific readers? Would the citations be off putting to readers who do not read at an academic level?
Becca, I think that’s probably the case! Like I mentioned in my comment to Greg, I probably have a negative bias toward popular science books that made my post a little on the harsh side.
I still stand on the idea that if they want to reference all these different studies, they should cite them. The fact that they don’t makes me (perhaps needlessly) skeptical of their claims. Admittedly, I also got a little hung up and could have engaged with what they were saying a little more!
Caleb,
Wow! You really analyzed the studies in this book well! Looking back, I didn’t do as good of a job reading it as I thought I did. I missed the fact that these studies were not research-based. Very impressive and detailed work. You are an inspiration Caleb!
Tonette, thanks for the encouraging words! I want to make clear that I’m not saying the studies are not research based, I think they very well could be! The authors simply don’t cite the studies that they reference which is odd to me.
Hi Caleb,
Thanks for your take on the book. I must admit I experienced a dopamine hit (and maybe enticed by your title) as I experienced “reward prediction error” as I learned your brother may be the one behind my latest video game addiction.
I appreciate your point, and that you pointed out, the lack of study citation. In many ways, we find ourselves taking their perspective against others on dopamine and how to understand this chemical in our brains. Without evidence, we just have to pick a side to embrace or not.
Despite the lack of citations, is there anything from the chapters that might influence your approach or understand of your work in ministry? I wondered how the use of novelty in church environments impact a person’s perception of the church environment. I guess it might depend on if the novel thing was welcomed in embraced. For example, a funny announcement video or a free gift for guests. I find that people in my congregation enjoy getting a tangible reminder after the sermon.
Chad, thanks for your question! The church I attend has been noticing a trend in many of the new members, primarily that they were coming with previous experience in the church. Something that I might link to the book is the idea of “reward prediction error”. What we might commonly refer to as a “refreshing” experience at a new church might be what they describe as some level of dopamine activity in our brain. The experience of something different from what we’ve been expecting that creates a new anticipation and motivation.
“Admittedly, the authors provide a long list of “recommended reading” at the end of each chapter that I haven’t read through. But I found the constant use of such a strategy by the authors to be reckless, or at best, lazy. Their inability to trace their arguments to peer reviewed studies clearly severely hinders what is otherwise a fun and though-provoking book.”
CAN I GET AN AMEN!?
Man! Im so glad that you said this! I was both frustrated with this book and wanting more… I don’t want to have to go track down all of these additional sources. I bought your book to read YOUR BOOK AND THOUGHTS.
GO CALEB!