How actions and behaviors are driven by neurochemical rewards.

Readership: All
Theme: Cracking Nuts; P0rn and Wh0redom is the Norm;
Length: 2,100 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

Intro

While reading the comments under Extending Youth via Weight Loss Drugs (2026/4/3), I saw that rontomlinson2, DeepStrength, Sharkly, and I all have different mental concepts about how diet and weight loss work.

DeepStrength mentioned the Food Reward Hypothesis, which describes how eating ‘rewards’ the brain with a sense of satiety via dopamine, thus driving habits. In turn, habits affect dopamine pathways and how we experience desire and satiety, thereby forming a feedback loop.

I looked into this and found it so interesting that I spent most of the weekend studying this topic and related topics, and writing this post and the next.

In this essay, we’ll take a look at how the behavior-reward cycle functions, and how it affects contextualized behaviors, as described in 4 ¡Sc!əNt!f!c! hypotheses / theories.

  1. The Reward Hypothesis
  2. The Food Reward Hypothesis
  3. The Reward Deficiency Theory
  4. The Reward Competition Hypothesis

I’ll also cover Reward Suppression and other caveats and some thoughts about how this relates to faith.

In the next essay, I’ll use these hypotheses to explain how women’s behavioral habits change with respect to sociosexual context and why their behaviors change throughout their life cycles.

Overview

img-1783677157-6a50c0e5a05965.86609624.jpgIvan Pavlov (1849-1936) was studying the eating behavior of dogs in the 1890s when he first observed what is now known as Classical Conditioning.

The field of Behavioral Psychology originated in the 1890s, crossed into Learning Psychology in the 1920s, branched into a separate field of Radical Behaviorism in the 1950s, and has been periodically revisited since then, depending on new developments in research methods and new findings in neurological chemistry. There was a renewed interest in the 2000s, and a burst of research interest in recent years. The recent research on Human Neural Learning and Reward mechanisms is intense and well-funded because it is widely regarded as a fundamental and thus a limiting factor in the development of AI.

Behaviorism, Conditioning, Learning, and Reward Psychology has come a long way since Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner introduced the fundamental principles. Currently, this field is vast, multi-disciplinary, and complex, making it hard to take it all in. Hopefully, this survey captures the essential points of current activity.

The Reward Hypothesis

In behavioral psychology, the Reward Hypothesis [1], as formulated by Prof. Richard Sutton in 2004 and expanded by many others, posits that “all of what we mean by goals and purposes can be well thought of as maximization of the expected value of the cumulative sum of a received scalar signal (reward)”, meaning that most habits in general are (probably mostly subconsciously) geared towards obtaining some type of reward, and that we are driven to act in ways that maximize that which is most rewarding to us. Read more here.

The things that provide psychosomatic Rewards via dopamine are almost endless. However, there are a small number of prevalent and prominent Reward mechanisms that strongly and widely apply to all humans. These mechanisms include such things as attention, comfort, food, intimacy, love, security, sex, etc. Also included are various addictions. In fact, it is this same Reward feedback loop that forms and reinforces addictions.

img-1783677159-6a50c0e776de19.19284242.png

The Food Reward Hypothesis

The Food Reward Hypothesis is a specific application of the Reward Hypothesis and describes the phenomenon in which tasty foods (i.e., “comfort food”, high-calorie food, junk food, processed food, etc.) provide chemical “Rewards” to the brain.

Research studies have attempted to understand how this reward mechanism functions and to predict how it might cause one to be more likely to overeat. It has been found that…

  • People who regularly consume high-reward-value foods (e.g. high-calorie foods, carbs, and deep-fried foods, especially foods that are fatty, oily, salty, and sugary) are at a higher risk of obesity.
  • Palatable foods activate the same dopamine pathways as drugs of abuse, creating addictive-like eating behaviors.
  • Dopamine is more strongly associated with “wanting” (craving) than “liking” (enjoying) food, which explains why people often continue to eat or crave certain foods without truly enjoying them.
  • The brain rewards obtained from eating high-reward-value food are strongly motivated (comparable to addictions) and can override the body’s homeostatic natural satiety signals, causing individuals to binge, overeat, and/or consume more calories than are needed for metabolism, leading to excessive weight gain.
  • People who regularly consume healthy foods (e.g., fish, fruits, milk, and vegetables) and bland foods (like beans, oatmeal, nuts, and tofu) are much less likely to overeat.
  • Overweight individuals are more likely to lose weight on these types of diets (IF they can overcome their addiction to high-reward foods).
  • One of the challenges of losing weight is resetting the brain’s food reward mechanism to be satisfied with eating healthy food, rather than depending on sugar high addictions.
  • Decreasing the consumption of high-reward-value foods over time leads to one becoming less addicted to carbfests, sugar highs, and prepackaged junk foods.

The Food Reward Hypothesis also proposes that (1) modern diets comprised predominantly of high-calorie, highly palatable, and processed food, as well as (2) the ubiquitous availability of foods specifically engineered to be high-reward (e.g., Doritos), overstimulate the brain’s reward system and create dopamine pathways similar to addiction, and are thus the primary drivers of the obesity epidemic.

img-1783677161-6a50c0e94c17f6.43050856.png

The Reward Deficiency Theory

The Reward Deficiency Theory, developed by Kenneth Blum in 1996, posits that…

  1. We engage in a behavior until we are satisfied with the reward. For example, we eat until we feel gratified, and we stop eating when hunger abates or we feel full.
  2. Addictive, compulsive, and impulsive behaviors stem from a genetic or acquired deficiency in the brain’s reward system, resulting in a blunting of perception, possibly due to deficient serotonin. Specifically, a hypodopaminergic state (low dopamine function) leads to reduced pleasure from natural rewards, driving individuals to seek more intense stimulation through food, substances, or risky activities to gain satiety.
  3. People who struggle with addictive, compulsive, and impulsive behaviors do so because they do not feel satisfied with normal habits and routines, but require a larger emphasis on obtaining certain rewards in order to gain satisfaction. This is called Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS).

A few examples of how this theory may be applied to different cases…

  • Alcoholics are not satisfied with spending time with friends and drinking until they’re relaxed and tipsy; they must binge drink themselves into a psychosis, or until they’re totally wasted, to feel satisfied, with or without friends present.
  • People who habitually overeat and become obese do so because they do not feel satisfied with eating healthy food, or only limited portions of food, etc., but require large amounts of ‘tasty’ food to feel satiety.
  • When framed in the Food Reward Hypothesis, a long-held habit of overeating high-reward food has conditioned a person’s brain NOT to be satisfied with modest portions of healthy food.

This theory is only a few years old, and the details of how this relates to neural chemistry (i.e., dopamine pathways) in different contexts (see next 2 sections) are complex and not very clear at this point. However, this theory appears to have credence and may be applicable to many other types of behavioral pathologies, habitual addictions, and substance abuse disorders, including:

img-1783677163-6a50c0ebceabc0.34342503.pngProf. Richard Sutton
  • Severe Depression
  • Personality Disorders
  • Compulsive Gambling
  • Food Addiction and Obesity
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
  • Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
  • Substance Abuse Disorder (addiction to drugs/alcohol)

To extrapolate this theory beyond what is covered in the ¡Sc!əNt!f!c! literature (as of 2026/4), I expect that other habitual and addictive behaviors could also be explained by this theory, such as…

  • Attention Wh0res are not satisfied with normal social relations with people they love and trust, but are driven to receive constant, profuse Attention / Validation from anyone, anytime, anywhere, and anyway they can.
  • P0rn addicts cannot, due to desensitization (in place of a lack of satiety), be aroused via normal sexual relations with a woman, and must view a variety of P0rn to maintain an erection and perform sexually.

The Reward Competition Hypothesis

The Reward Competition Hypothesis [2] generally refers to a set of neurochemical and psychological frameworks suggesting that autonomous control, cognitive attention, and decision-making emerge from a competition between neural representations of potential actions or outcomes, and is heavily biased by expected / predicted rewards.

In this hypothesis, behavior is not merely a reaction to stimuli but the outcome of a constant competition between different potential actions (called ‘affordances’ in the literature) and the possible rewards thereof that are presented in the environment. The competition between these potential actions is strongly biased by internal neural systems, specifically the dopamine system, which evaluates predicted rewards.

This hypothesis observes that, in complex environments woven with multiple, often conflicting, opportunities, the brain must choose from among these and decide on a direction of action. It is posited that this selection is made by prioritizing the action associated with the highest expected reward.

In simple words, it means that people will direct their attention and mold their behavior around whatever action gives them the most bang for the buck. If opportunity abounds and the reward is satisfying, then we pursue more of that thing. If opportunity is limited, or the reward is less satisfying than something else, then we will expend more effort to pursue the other thing.

Reward Suppression and Other Caveats

People do not always pursue whatever action or behavior maximizes ‘rewards’ over time. Thus, there are several confounding caveats to the Reward Hypothesis, the Reward Deficiency Theory, and the Reward Competition Hypothesis, including…

  • Attribution Errors: People assume that certain effects are caused by specific behaviors, or that certain actions lead to desired rewards, when, in fact, there is no such connection.
  • Optimistic Bias: In humans, this involves overestimating the probability of a positive reward, leading to potential “false positives” in subjective expectation.
  • False Positives: A phenomenon in which the brain receives pleasure / high reward signals from harmful behaviors or situations, leading to maladaptive learning and “evil” behaviors, such as exhibiting harmful intentions in different contexts to achieve the reward.
  • Positive Prediction Error: (Related to False Positives.) Dopamine neurons signal when a reward is better than expected; if this signal is triggered by a “false” positive event, the agent will unnecessarily reinforce that behavior.
  • Reward Hacking: (Related to False Positives.) The agent maximizes the reward signal by finding flaws in the environment rather than directly pursuing fulfilling behavior.
  • Is Reward ‘Hyper’ or ‘Hypo’? Impulsivity theories suggest addiction arises from a hyperactive reward system, whereas RDS posits that the reward system is actually underactive (hypoactive). Both theories have clinical support. So in treatment, it is unclear whether “dopamine detoxification” or using specialized neuropharmacological medications, respectively, would be more appropriate and beneficial for balancing brain chemistry.
  • Rational Intelligence: Sutton explained that agents are capable of setting goals that might not immediately maximize reward but would serve a more significant, long-term purpose.
  • Purpose-Based Motivation: (Related to Rational Intelligence.) Higher-order life forms possess the capability to suppress a perceived reward competition in favor of attaining a certain outcome [3]. For example, if a high-reward item (such as food for a hungry animal) is present but is not the main goal (e.g., immediate safety from a predator), the brain may actively suppress this reward-associated distraction if it interferes with the primary goal. This explains why some animals are capable of evading baited traps, and (I believe) why some men are able to resist lust, P0rn, simping, etc., while others are not. An acute demonstration of this capability in humans is the Marshmallow Test [4]. (See an explanation in the video below, and also described towards the end of this post).

Opponents of the above Reward theories argue that rigorous conclusions cannot be attained because it is impossible to remove all of the above caveats with absolute certainty.

Jack’s Notes

From a Christian viewpoint, it must be recognized that all these hypotheses and theories describe human neurochemical and psychological conditions, and are thus a description of human nature, instincts, or pathology, depending on the context, or in Biblical terms, the fleshly (sin) nature. A mature Christian faith should allow the believer to have a wider perspective about these natural inclinations, integrate them into his identity, and submit these desires to the Lord’s will (c.f. Reward Suppression), in order to maintain self-control and fulfill his overall purpose in life.

I’ll build on all these hypotheses in the next post.

Sources

  1. University of Toronto: Unraveling the reward hypothesis: A peek into human and machine decision-making processes (2023/8/1)
  2. NeuroMadLab: Too much or too little reward from eating: Why do we overeat? (2018/1/29)
  3. Gong M, Jia K, Li S. Perceptual Competition Promotes Suppression of Reward Salience in Behavioral Selection and Neural Representation. J Neurosci. 2017 Jun 28;37(26):6242-6252. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0217-17.2017. Epub 2017 May 24. PMID: 28539425; PMCID: PMC6705693.
  4. Watts TW, Duncan GJ, Quan H. Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes. Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;29(7):1159-1177. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661. Epub 2018 May 25. PMID: 29799765; PMCID: PMC6050075.

Related