As the mother of a cat with the same eating disorder as yours, I can see what you mean: the drive to try, to never be fulfilled, to be seeking but dissatisfied with what one seeks. I see this in some of my patients, as well. I would imagine that this seeking would be seen as a deficit in the reward system, likely involving a dopaminergic system ('that which I am seeking is not as gratifying as I imagined, therefore I must keep seeking" is one major function of dopamine). There is some suggestion that those with morbid obesity have a higher drive to seek stimulation, are more impulsive and less responsive to restriction models. But what about restricting disorder (I seek nothing and feel better without seeking) - what would that entail, do you think? And how to then explain the (relatively) frequent crossover between these disorders? Most certainly we all have specific "wiring" that sets us up to engage with our world in a certain manner: whether we seek rewards, the amount of stimulus we prefer, our basic appetitive drives. This is where neurocognitive and neuroimaging work have tried to focus (are some of us super-tasters? could a milkshake set some people up for more seeking of sweets than others?)

On the other hand, it may be that your cat is diabetic and could use a good endocrinologist :)

Dear Lonny, one could look at this question from many different perspectives. The perspective I hold is that genes such as DRD4 etc are perhaps overexpressed with resultant changes in neurotransmitters. This in conjunction with environmental triggers results in specific behavioural patterns, that in some cases are common across disorders and in other cases have unique presentations. It has been found that untreated children with ADHD tend to abuse substances when older, which may be an unconscious need to balance neurotransmitter systems.....

Thanks so much Kathleen. I agree so much – we tend to look at the dopaminergic (and, in fact perhaps, any fundamental behavioral drive/reward system) as a single dimensional phenomenon, with some ideal response and then some varying deviation from that. Of course, “ideal” can really mean our own collectively familiar comfort level as a normative frequency of response intensity and urgency.

After having read Dr. Seligman’s dissertation (“The disruptive effects of unpredictable shock”, 1967), he opened my eyes to something regarding natural conditioning -- just as his insight about positive psychology did for us all. He showed that we tend to exclude the zone of conditioned absence when we consider mostly only the conditioned presence of associative stimuli. That whole missing dimension seems to be where all this unfulfilled urgency resides. Absence is not empty -- it contains a void potential as great as any visual expression of need. We must equally condition comfort and fulfillment (at least a temporal zone of safety) – not simply hope that non-reinforcement of undesirable responses will suffice.

You asked, “But what about restricting disorder (I seek nothing and feel better without seeking) . . . ?” Thank you for this. We tend to think of obsession in terms of an excess of anything. But often, we may be just as anxious to avoid things and exhibit the negative equivalent of excess (self-denial). When a cat or any of us craves, we feel better when we overcompensate. In the same way, if we feel better because we are not urgent, then it is really anxiety and not passivity which is directing us not to exert urgency. Like you said – if we feel better when we undercompensate too, maybe overcompensation isn’t what we think.? Maybe it’s simply a continuum of need, with only a narrow interval of acceptable fulfillment?

Dear Cheryl,

Thanks so much for bringing your expertise and perspective to this discussion. I had wondered about that myself, yet you have such a deeper understanding about the diversity of the intensity, of how afferent stimuli affect each of us. Do you think it could be there is no ideal response potential, so much as a familiar one which we find ourselves discomfited with respect to, when exposed to those more variant than we are used to? Or is there really a best expression of a gene? I was much inspired by reading some of Darwin's thoughts on how we look at variety both urgently and comfortably - and that the dividing line between what might be a best continuity and any others just as possible, is kind of vague. Alleles intrigue me so much - it is almost like nature never stops looking for a "different way" to survive, as opposed to a "best way". Does that perhaps protect us from disease? And so our feeling of discomfort (around different genetic/behavioral expressions), is really a fear of disease/mortality? Thanks so much for sharing.

Dear Lonny, sorry it took me a while to respond! Your post is very interesting. The complexity of the relationship between genetic expression and behavioural ones is immense. This brings me back to the possible mediators of these relationships. I did have an idea, which is not based on any specific research, it is only a humble hypothesis based on the works of others. The construction of schemas from early life have a physiological basis, as I do not think that they are separate systems, we just do not have enough convergence of evidence to indicate definite relationships and would need far more sophisticated technology , which will still take time. Depending on the emotions associated with a schema, certain external events may trigger physiological vulnerabilities, and it is viable that discomfort/anxiety is a form of early warning system that multi-level organic and psychological damage may occur unless specific events are in some way avoided. That being said,different meta cognitive processes, direct cognitive processes,locking in certain dysfunctionalities (or functions) - see the works of Beck, and Wells and Matthews - that in turn may then trigger physiological reactions (with gene expression being altered) in an attempt to protect the emotional homeostasis of an individual and avoid allostatic load. I presume that this can be both functional and dysfunctional, so it could act as a protective factor from disease, or play a major role in it. The concept of a fear of disease/mortality could be conceptualized differently by people, and the need to maintain psychological functioning may override other factors, however once specific physiological alterations have occurred, dysfunctionality may be increased and interpreted from a content viewpoint as internal evidence of threat to homeostasis, thus the idea of different way to survive makes a great deal of sense to me.

Hope that I have explained myself well, let me know if I have.