Key Takeaways
- In rat and mouse studies led by Kent Berridge, dopamine was tied to wanting a reward far more than to liking it
- People often expect a future success to feel stronger and last longer than it does, so a reached goal can feel smaller than you expected
- People adapt to good and bad events, but how much they adapt differs from person to person
- In diary studies, savoring good moments and sharing good news were linked to a happier mood
- The aim is to keep your drive and add habits that help you notice and enjoy each win
The dopamine paradox is why you can chase a goal for months, reach it, and feel less than you expected. Research on wanting vs. liking may help explain it. Dopamine, a chemical messenger in the brain, is tied far more to wanting a reward than to liking it. In animal studies led by Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson, rats that had lost almost all the dopamine in key reward areas still showed normal pleasure reactions to sugar. Mice with extra dopamine worked harder for sugar but showed no more pleasure when they tasted it. Understanding that split, the framework at the center of The Dopamine Code, can help you keep your drive and make more room for satisfaction.
In this article, I walk you through the dopamine paradox, unraveling the neurobiology of why the brain can crave anticipation more than it enjoys arrival, and how understanding this can change the way you pursue goals and satisfaction.
Anticipation’s High, Satisfaction’s Whisper
Dopamine is the engine of pursuit. It surges when I imagine, predict, and move toward a potential reward. It does not guarantee that I will like what I get. Liking (the quiet, embodied sense of “this feels good”) relies far more on systems that don’t shout. That may be why the thrill of the chase can eclipse the pleasure of arrival. This is the wanting-liking gap made visible in everyday life: you plan, strive, hit the target, and within hours your mind is already scanning for the next hill to take.
In my work, I watch this play out across careers, relationships, and personal goals. The brain’s reward circuitry responds strongly during anticipation, and then it settles (sometimes abruptly) once the outcome lands. If the result meets expectations, the signal quiets. If the result exceeds expectations, it spikes briefly. If it disappoints, it dips quickly and pushes you to redirect your pursuit.
A Brain Built to Move, Not Linger
From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. My ancestors couldn’t bask in satisfaction for long; lingering after a good hunt was a risky proposition. The wanting system had to reignite quickly to secure the next meal and maintain safety. This wanting-liking divergence may be a legacy of that design. In a modern context, the same circuitry makes me refresh inboxes, chase metrics, and crave recognition as if my life depended on it. It doesn’t. Yet the biology insists it might.
Recognizing that pattern is liberating. It reframes “what’s wrong with me?” into “what’s going on in my brain?” Instead of pathologizing drive, I can use it wisely. Instead of blaming myself for muted joy, I can build structures that amplify liking once I arrive.
The Hedonic Treadmill, Revisited
The hedonic treadmill is closely related to the wanting-liking split. Wanting outruns liking, so I adapt to new possessions, titles, and accolades with startling speed. The solution is not to mute ambition. The solution is to pair pursuit with practices that deliberately convert arrival into felt enjoyment, precisely what dopamine anchoring as a strategy for sustained motivation makes possible. When I ritualize savoring, I lengthen the time my nervous system spends in liking rather than whipping myself back into craving.
Case Study: Viviana, Achievement Without Satisfaction
Viviana came to me with a résumé that most would envy: promotions, industry awards, leadership over high-visibility initiatives. Yet she described her inner life as numb. “I hit the goal, and it evaporates,” she said. “I don’t feel it.” This is relentless wanting paired with fragile liking: the psychological pattern that emerges when achievement and satisfaction consistently diverge.
I looked at her reward patterns and mapped them against her daily rhythms. Her spikes were clustered around anticipation: pitching new ideas, preparing for big meetings, watching metrics climb. The moments that should have delivered satisfaction (project completion, team wins, public recognition) registered only briefly before her mind shifted to the next chase. She had no language for what was happening to her neurologically.
We rebuilt her architecture. First, I installed “pleasure pauses” on her calendar after major checkpoints: five to fifteen minutes of deliberate slowing to label sensations, mark meaning, and share the win with someone who mattered. Second, I had her introduce micro-rituals that tied effort to enjoyment: a short walk outdoors after shipping a deliverable; a favorite meal with her partner after wrapping a milestone; a quiet five-minute journal that captured what the win meant to her identity rather than her image. Third, we aligned goals with values so the brain recognized not only the outcome but also the congruence.
Within six weeks, Viviana reported a striking shift: fewer empty highs, more grounded satisfaction, and a calmer pace that paradoxically increased her output. The reward gap didn’t disappear; it became navigable. She learned to harness wanting while cultivating liking.
“The dopamine paradox does not punish ambition; it punishes the assumption that arrival will feel as good as the chase. Once you stop expecting satisfaction to match anticipation, you can design for both.”
The Thrill of “Maybe” and Why It Hooks You
Variable reinforcement (“maybe this time”) is a powerful driver of wanting. It is the reason gambling captivates, how digital reward loops exploit the wanting system, notifications hijack attention, and intermittent praise at work can feel addictive. To work with it, I maintain uncertainty where it benefits (creativity, exploration, innovation) and mitigate it where it hinders: role ambiguity, unclear priorities, unstable boundaries. In my clients, the most significant gains often come from shrinking unwanted uncertainty.
Gender, Hormones, and Motivation Cycles
Drive is not monolithic. Many men feel steady initiative. In contrast, many women experience cyclical variations in motivation and social reward sensitivity across the month and across life stages. The lesson I draw from my work with clients is simple: learn your pattern, respect your tempo, and schedule high-leverage pursuits when your motivational chemistry is in favor of them. The wanting-liking gap remains in play, but timing becomes an ally rather than a mystery.
Cultural Scripts and the Social Brain
Culture teaches the brain what to want. Status, autonomy, belonging, legacy: each society amplifies specific signals and dulls others. I ask clients to audit their “borrowed” goals. Are you chasing a promotion because it aligns with your values, or because your industry worships ladders? Are you optimizing for public likes or private meaning? The wanting-liking gap is merciless when your goals are borrowed from others; you’ll work hard and like it little. When your goals are chosen, wanting still surges, but liking finally has a place to land.
Reward Prediction Error in Real Life
This wanting-liking circuit is shaped by prediction and reward expectation. If the outcome beats your expectation, you get a burst. If it merely meets expectations, you normalize quickly. If it falls short, you feel a sharp drop and a reflex to redirect. I guide clients to manage expectations intentionally, not to dampen ambition, but to right-size the brain’s forecast. Underpromise to yourself on timelines; overdefine what “good” means; and plan for positive surprises you can control. You’ll still feel the chase, but you’ll also feel the win.
What Wanting Sounds Like in Your Head
I guide clients to recognize the voice of wanting. It is future-focused, impatient, and contingency-driven. It speaks in if-then statements: if I ship this today, then I can rest; if I get this title, then I’ll feel secure. Liking speaks more quietly and presently: this feels satisfying; I’m proud of this moment; I want to stay here a little longer. Understanding how wanting and liking diverge teaches you to honor both voices: use drive to start, and use the incentive salience map to finish deliberately.
Designing for Liking Without Losing Drive
I don’t ask clients to give up their edge. I ask them to install architecture that turns achievement into absorption. Here is the framework I use to make the wanting-liking gap work in your favor:
Name the Win
Label explicitly what was accomplished and why it matters.
Share the Signal
Social acknowledgment deepens satisfaction. Share the outcome with a trusted person or team and ask them to reflect on what they see. The social brain translates private effort into communal meaning.
Mark the Moment
Create a brief ritual: music, a walk, a favorite tea, or a stretching sequence. Repetition links completion with embodied pleasure. With practice, your body anticipates liking, not just wanting.
Close the Loop
Write two or three sentences about what you learned, who you became, and what you will not carry forward.
Delay the Next Sprint
Even a short delay (ten to fifteen minutes) between finishing and starting the subsequent pursuit changes your pacing. The gap trains your system that it is safe to savor before you chase again.
The Wanting–Liking Map: A Two-Week Practice
I ask clients to track two columns each day for two weeks. Column one: top three things I want. Column two: how much I actually like the outcomes I achieved yesterday. Most people discover clear classes of desires: some consistently produce high liking (finishing a complex task, quality time with a partner, physical movement), while others reliably disappoint (doom-scrolling, impulse purchases, vanity metrics). Once you see the pattern, you can invest energy where wanting and liking converge and prune the rest. Day by day, this structural awareness narrows the wanting-liking gap.
Performance Without the Crash: Executive Function and Energy
When wanting dominates, procrastination and sprinting replace rhythm and stewardship. I rebuild executive function by sequencing tasks to match cognitive energy: deep work when attention peaks, admin when it dips, restoration before depletion. I help clients internalize a simple rule: protect the asset. If you burn the system to earn the reward, you may widen the wanting-liking split. This is how dopamine relates to motivation and focus. Your brain will insist on chasing again because arrival rarely feels safe or satisfying.
Relationships Through the Lens of Reward
In relationships, this reward mismatch manifests as a tendency toward novelty-seeking over nurturance, the same neural drive that may help explain why we want what we can’t have. Many partners chase the spark and undervalue the steady warmth of a secure connection. This wanting-without-liking dynamic may help explain how the wanting-liking gap fuels infidelity. I teach couples to convert small moments into reliable rewards: daily acknowledgments, micro-celebrations, and intentional reunions at the end of the workday. When ambition is cultivated at home, it becomes less frantic and more focused outside the house.
Creativity, Curiosity, and the Productive Use of Craving
I never demonize wanting. Curiosity and exploration rely on it. The key is to channel cravings toward domains that tolerate uncertainty and reward persistence, such as creative work, learning, and entrepreneurship. I advise clients to separate discovery sprints (open-ended, high novelty) from delivery sprints (structured, outcome-focused). This rhythm respects the brain’s reward architecture: use uncertainty to generate energy; use structure to harvest satisfaction.
Stress, Burnout, and the Biology of “Never Enough”
Chronic stress narrows attention and intensifies future focus. In that state, liking can be harder to reach. I have clients run short regulation protocols before significant transitions: three slow breaths, one minute of visual horizon scanning, five gentle neck rotations. These micro-interventions send a safety signal that reopens access to the present. Without somatic safety, the wanting cycle becomes a treadmill you cannot step off.
Implicit Wanting: The Unconscious Pull Behind the Dopamine Paradox
Kent Berridge’s research at the University of Michigan revealed something that reshaped how I think about the wanting-liking gap: wanting can operate below conscious awareness. Berridge and his colleagues call this kind of wanting incentive salience: the pull that makes a reward, or a cue linked to it, grab your attention. They separate it from the conscious desires you can put into words. In their view, implicit wanting can work at a level you do not always notice, and cues tied to past rewards, such as a sound, a sight or a place, can set it off. You reach for your phone, open the refrigerator or refresh your inbox without stopping to decide.
Berridge’s lab tested the split between wanting and liking in animals. In one study, rats lost up to 99% of the dopamine in key reward areas. They still made normal pleasure reactions to sugar and normal disgust reactions to a bitter taste (Berridge and Robinson, 1998). In another, mice bred to have about 70% more dopamine between their brain cells left the start box faster, learned faster and ran more directly to a sweet reward. Yet the taste of sugar brought them no more pleasure reactions than it brought normal mice (Peciña and colleagues, 2003). In these animals, extra dopamine raised wanting and left liking where it was. Berridge and Robinson argue that addiction works in a similar way: cues can make a drug intensely wanted without making it more liked.
I see this daily in my work. A client describes checking their portfolio twelve times before lunch without enjoying the information. Another describes accepting speaking engagements that reliably produce dread rather than satisfaction: the anticipatory signal fires, they say yes, and only after committing do they recognize the wanting was disconnected from any actual liking. The wanting system operates through these implicit loops (automatic, fast) with profound psychological consequences for achievement-oriented individuals.
One practical step follows from this. In Berridge’s theory, cues can set off wanting, so you can change the cues around you. Put the phone in another room. Build a short pause into your calendar after a big win. These ideas come from the theory, and the studies cited here did not test them in people. The goal is to point implicit wanting at things that reliably bring you liking.
Hedonic Hotspots: Where Liking Lives in the Brain
If wanting is the strong system, research on hedonic hotspots suggests why liking can seem fragile. Kringelbach and Berridge describe small brain sites, called hedonic hotspots, where certain chemical signals boost “liking” reactions to sweet tastes. These signals include opioids and endocannabinoids, the body’s own morphine-like and cannabis-like chemicals. Hotspots have been found in the nucleus accumbens shell and the ventral pallidum, two areas deep in the brain. In rats, each hotspot is only about a cubic millimeter. Kringelbach and Berridge estimate that a human hotspot might be about a cubic centimeter, if it scales with brain size.
The difference in size matters. Berridge and Robinson (2016) describe wanting as coming from large, strong brain systems that include the mesolimbic dopamine pathway. That pathway runs from the ventral tegmental area, a region in the midbrain, to the nucleus accumbens. They describe liking as coming from smaller, more fragile systems that do not depend on dopamine, a map drawn mostly from studies in rats.
In practice, this means that liking requires protection. Every high-performing client I work with who reports “I achieve but I don’t feel it” is describing the gap this page is about.
The solution is not to amplify liking through more intense experiences: that feeds the wanting system. The solution is to create conditions where the hedonic hotspots can function: adequate sleep, lower stress, sensory experiences (physical touch, warmth, music, taste), and deliberate slowing at the moment of reward. When I install “pleasure pauses” in a client’s schedule, I am not being soft. I am creating a window to enjoy the win before the wanting system drags attention to the next target.
Reward Systems Beyond Dopamine: The Opioid-Dopamine Divergence
The wanting-liking split makes more sense once you see that the brain operates multiple reward systems. Berridge, Robinson and Aldridge describe three parts of reward that experiments can pull apart: liking (the pleasure itself), wanting (the pull toward a reward) and learning (predictions based on past rewards). In rats, opioid and endocannabinoid signals, among others, can boost liking at certain sites. Dopamine is tied more to wanting. These parts can line up, so that you want something, go after it and enjoy it, or they can come apart.
This split may help explain why reaching a goal can feel flat. That link is an inference. The studies cited here did not measure dopamine or opioids in people working toward a goal.
Research by Peciña and Berridge mapped where an opioid drug acts in the rat nucleus accumbens shell. In one small spot, about a cubic millimeter in size, the drug made rats show more “liking” reactions to sugar, the facial reactions that sweet tastes bring. Across the whole medial shell, the same drug made rats eat more. The sites that drove eating were spread wide, and the site that boosted pleasure sat in one small place. Kringelbach and Berridge caution against simple formulas such as “opioids equal pleasure” for this reason. Studies that raised dopamine found a different pattern: more wanting with no added liking, as in the mice described above.
This has practice implications for anyone caught in the wanting-liking cycle. Most productivity advice, biohacking protocols, and performance optimization strategies aim at drive, focus, and pursuit, and do little for enjoyment. The person follows the protocol, achieves more, pursues harder, and enjoys less. In my work, I explicitly target both: dopamine-mediated motivation for goal pursuit, and opioid-mediated satisfaction for goal arrival. When both reward systems are engaged, the wanting-liking gap narrows. Wanting and liking begin to converge rather than diverge.
The Dopamine Paradox in Everyday Life: Social Media, Cravings, and the Shopping Cart
The wanting-liking split can show up in daily life: in a scroll through your feed, a late-night snack, an online shopping cart. Seeing how it shows up turns the paradox from an idea into something you can work with.
Social media scrolling is one example. Each swipe offers a chance that the next post will be worth seeing. The payoff works like a variable reinforcement schedule: you cannot tell which swipe will bring something good. In Berridge’s theory, cues tied to possible rewards are what set off incentive salience. The studies cited here did not measure dopamine or pleasure during scrolling, so treat this as a way of looking at the habit.
Food cravings follow the same architecture. The anticipation of eating (planning the meal, imagining the taste, driving to the restaurant) can pull harder than the eating itself. I ask clients to notice the precise moment when anticipation converts to consumption. Almost universally, they report that the first bite is the peak. By the fourth or fifth, the experience has flattened. Attention has already shifted to the next prediction. This is why portion control through willpower is so hard: wanting can keep going as liking declines.
Online shopping provides the cleanest demonstration. The browsing phase (researching products, reading reviews, comparing options, adding items to the cart) is pure anticipation. The purchase itself brings a brief lift. The delivery, objectively the moment of reward, often produces surprisingly little. The item sits in its box. The wanting has already moved on. I have worked with clients who maintain hundreds of unopened packages, not from compulsive buying patterns, but from the anticipation-reward mismatch operating at retail scale. The cart, not the product, was the reward.
You can keep these activities and change how you use them. Batch your social media into set windows. Eat the first three bites slowly and with full attention. Before clicking “purchase,” ask yourself: am I buying this, or am I buying the anticipation of buying it? Small steps like these make room to notice liking.
Boundaries that Protect Liking
I consider boundaries as reward hygiene. Clear stop times, phone-free windows, weekly white space, and device curfews are investments in your ability to enjoy. Each boundary preserves the conditions for liking to arise and be noticed. Without them, wanting will colonize every open minute.
Values as the Antidote to Empty Wins
The fastest way to convert wanting into liking is alignment. When your goal aligns with your values (such as service, mastery, beauty, or growth), you tend to feel deeper satisfaction. I ask clients to define three value filters and run significant commitments through them. If a goal fails two of the three filters, it typically produces the sharpest form of reward disappointment: a huge push to start, little satisfaction at the finish.
Language That Rewires Motivation
Words shape reward salience. I nudge clients to replace outcome-only language with identity-linked language. Not “I need to win this contract,” but “I deliver excellence and build trust.” The former inflates the chase; the latter deepens the experience of becoming. Over time, the wanting-liking gap narrows because you can take enjoyment from who you are while pursuing, not only from what you obtain.
A Practical Week of Wanting and Liking
Here is a simple schedule I give clients who are ready to close the wanting-liking gap intentionally:
Monday: Identify one needle-moving task and one micro-ritual you will use to mark completion. Schedule both.
Tuesday: Add a five-minute savor block after your top task. Write three sensory details about the moment of finishing.
Wednesday: Share one win with a peer or partner and reflect their acknowledgment in writing.
Thursday: Prune one pursuit you know generates high wanting and low liking. Reallocate that time to a value-aligned activity.
Friday: Review the week’s wins and explicitly name their meaning. Delay the next sprint for fifteen minutes.
Weekend: Choose one intrinsically rewarding activity (learning, movement, nature, art): no metrics, no photos, just presence.
Repeat for four weeks. You will still feel the pull between wanting and liking (it is part of being human), but you will stop being ruled by it.
When High Achievement Masks Fear
Many clients insist that more output will finally deliver peace. The anticipation-reward mismatch feeds that illusion because the chemistry of wanting feels like certainty. I respect drive, and I challenge the belief beneath it: that safety lives only in the future. It never does. Safety and satisfaction are either present or absent altogether. When I teach the nervous system to tolerate stillness after a win, the entire architecture of motivation changes.
What Changes When You Master the Dopamine Paradox
You don’t become less ambitious; you become more precise. You don’t lose your edge; you lose your compulsion. You don’t stop wanting; you stop mistaking wanting for happiness. In my work, that shift looks like higher-quality work, steadier relationships, and a calmer baseline that sustains long-term success. The wanting-liking gap remains, but it stops running your life.
Your Two Commitments Going Forward
First, I will honor my drive by pointing it at what matters. Second, I will celebrate my humanity by bringing enjoyment wherever I go. Keep those promises, and the wanting-liking dynamic becomes a partner: drive pulls you forward; genuine satisfaction holds you steady when you get there.
| Dimension | Wanting | Liking |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | The pull toward a reward (incentive salience) | The pleasure of the reward itself (hedonic impact) |
| Brain systems named in the studies | Large systems that include the mesolimbic dopamine pathway (VTA → nucleus accumbens) | Small hedonic hotspots in the nucleus accumbens shell and ventral pallidum, boosted by opioid and endocannabinoid signals |
| What changing dopamine did | Mice with extra dopamine worked harder for a sweet reward | Rats with almost no dopamine kept normal pleasure reactions, and extra dopamine did not raise them in mice |
| How it is measured in animals | How eagerly an animal works or runs for a reward | Facial reactions to sweet and bitter tastes |
For a deeper look at how your brain’s reward systems shape your choices, explore our dopamine and motivation hub and our guide to dopamine optimization.
What is the dopamine paradox?
The dopamine paradox is the gap between wanting a reward and liking it. In animal studies led by Kent Berridge, dopamine was tied to wanting, while pleasure ran through other, smaller brain systems. That split may help explain why a reached goal can feel smaller than the chase.
Why can achievement feel empty after you get what you wanted?
Part of the answer is prediction. People often expect a future event to make them feel better, and for longer, than it does. Psychologists Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert call this the impact bias, a finding from research on affective forecasting, or predicting future feelings. In animal studies, the gap between the reward an animal expected and the reward it got sets off a response in the cells that make dopamine, and that signal helps the brain learn. Berridge’s work treats that learning signal and the pleasure itself as separate parts of reward.
How do you escape the hedonic treadmill?
You learn to work with the hedonic treadmill. People adapt to changes, though how much differs from person to person. Two habits have support in diary studies: sharing good news with people who respond warmly, and savoring good moments as they happen. In her practice, Dr. Ceruto also has clients build pleasure pauses and run goals through their values.
Is the dopamine paradox the same as hedonic adaptation?
Hedonic adaptation and the dopamine paradox are related but distinct. Hedonic adaptation is the way people get used to good and bad changes over time. Ed Diener and colleagues found that people differ in how much they adapt, and that happiness set points can change. The dopamine paradox is the split between wanting and liking that Berridge’s animal studies describe.
Can you train your brain to enjoy achievement more?
You can build habits that help you enjoy it more. In a 30-day diary study of 101 people, good events were more strongly linked to a happy mood when people savored them. In other diary studies, telling others about good news was linked to more positive feelings that day, beyond the good news itself. These diary studies measured feelings, not brain chemistry.
References
- Berridge, K. C., and Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, 28(3), 309-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00019-8
- Berridge, K. C., and Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670-679. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000059
- Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E., and Aldridge, J. W. (2009). Dissecting components of reward: ‘Liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9(1), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014
- Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., and Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305
- Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., and Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
- Jose, P. E., Lim, B. T., and Bryant, F. B. (2012). Does savoring increase happiness? A daily diary study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.671345
- Kringelbach, M. L., and Berridge, K. C. (2009). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of pleasure and happiness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 479-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.006
- Peciña, S., and Berridge, K. C. (2005). Hedonic hot spot in nucleus accumbens shell: Where do mu-opioids cause increased hedonic impact of sweetness? Journal of Neuroscience, 25(50), 11777-11786. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2329-05.2005
- Peciña, S., Cagniard, B., Berridge, K. C., Aldridge, J. W., and Zhuang, X. (2003). Hyperdopaminergic mutant mice have higher “wanting” but not “liking” for sweet rewards. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(28), 9395-9402. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-28-09395.2003
- Schultz, W. (2015). Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiological Reviews, 95(3), 853-951. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00023.2014
- Wilson, T. D., and Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x
Take the Next Step
If you recognize the dopamine paradox operating in your own life (the gap between wanting and enjoying, the restless pursuit that never quite delivers), a consultation with Dr. Sydney Ceruto can look at the patterns driving the cycle and what it would take to change them.
