It's clear that nicotine binds to those receptors, but exactly how that plays out is far more complex in practice, depending on a whole host of variables.
- Presence or absence of other nicotinic agonists, inverse agonists, and antagonists, and relative concentrations of each
- Effects vary wildly with nicotine concentration levels in plasma/interstitial fluid, as if it's an entirely different drug depending on how much is present
- etc.
You're drawing a direct line from one agonist the paper only mentions once to a psychological effect that the paper doesn't even describe. You may or may not be right, but this paper is at best a citation for a separate study to test your hypothesis.
Please state your conflicts of interest before you diminish the impact of that research some more. Can you make yourself argue for the positive effect that article has even a tiny bit? That we are a happy peoples who are discovering just how profound of an effect nACHR agonists like nicotine can have? Focus on the positives.
In boxing, you do not talk your opponent through as you knock him out.
In research, pick any field, say, astronomy, you do not mention that Earth is not flat and that the Earth orbits the Sun.
In biochemistry research, you do not spell out that nicotine binds to NICOTINIC acetelcholine receptors as an agonist, that's literally Biochem 101.