There is no standard diagnosis for ‘phone addiction’, and a debate rages about whether there should be. But will medicalizing a behavior help or harm those suffering from it?
I know it’s just a comic but I still disagree with it’s message. Phones are essentially mini-computers connected to the Internet which has the potential for endless dopamine-inducing entertainment and we carry them around with us 24/7.
A very powerful dopamine-pump, with us around the clock, every day.
This has actually never happened before in history.
This has actually never happened before in history.
This is what literally all those other people were saying in that comic. That’s why each panel had a date.
Books were considered mini-dopamine pumps that could be carried around everywhere, all day and every day. Well, they would’ve been, if they’d known what dopamine was.
people have been bitching about how technology will ruin society since the dawn of technology. Which, just for the record, predates modern humans. some neanderthal husband probably complained about his mate using buffalowooly mammoth jumps instead of like, trying to pick a fight with a wooly mammoth.
society changes to adapt to the technology. you can argue if this is a good thing or not, but one thing that is perfectly incontrovertible is that it will not ruin society.
Is there any medical basis for for phones causing infinite dopamine production? The body has finite resources, so I’d imagine you’d eventually run out, get bored, and move on to something else.
Dopamine is also produced when you’re around someone you love, but no one says we’re dangerously addicted to our loved ones…
Huberman always struck me as a guy more interested in building a business than public health. After all he hocks supplements just like all the other quacks and “alt” medicine guys. I do not take him seriously.
Source? Source? Source? Do you have a source on that? Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. No, you can’t make inferences and observations from the sources you’ve gathered.
I know it’s just a comic but I still disagree with it’s message. Phones are essentially mini-computers connected to the Internet which has the potential for endless dopamine-inducing entertainment and we carry them around with us 24/7. A very powerful dopamine-pump, with us around the clock, every day. This has actually never happened before in history.
This is what literally all those other people were saying in that comic. That’s why each panel had a date.
Books were considered mini-dopamine pumps that could be carried around everywhere, all day and every day. Well, they would’ve been, if they’d known what dopamine was.
In high school I had novels in my backpack and spent all my free time reading. Would rush to class early to read more.
It’s the same shit at a different scale.
people have been bitching about how technology will ruin society since the dawn of technology. Which, just for the record, predates modern humans. some neanderthal husband probably complained about his mate using
buffalowooly mammoth jumps instead of like, trying to pick a fight with a wooly mammoth.society changes to adapt to the technology. you can argue if this is a good thing or not, but one thing that is perfectly incontrovertible is that it will not ruin society.
Is there any medical basis for for phones causing infinite dopamine production? The body has finite resources, so I’d imagine you’d eventually run out, get bored, and move on to something else.
Dopamine is also produced when you’re around someone you love, but no one says we’re dangerously addicted to our loved ones…
I’m not a doctor or anything though.
I dont know man… citation fuckin needed.
Andrew Huberman is a neurologist who covers this in depth, with citations and references, if you’re actually interested. It’s pretty well established
Huberman always struck me as a guy more interested in building a business than public health. After all he hocks supplements just like all the other quacks and “alt” medicine guys. I do not take him seriously.
Source? Source? Source? Do you have a source on that? Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. No, you can’t make inferences and observations from the sources you’ve gathered.