/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15088504
I believe it. I feel dumber in proportion to the amount of time I've spent scrolling 4chan. I assume other social media are no better.

>>15027907
Yes.

1. find shitty clickbait article
2. post it on /sci/ - Race & IQ
3. get reward from the (You)s

I am beginning to relate more and more to this meme about those who supposedly have "burned" their dopamine receptors and can't feel genuine happiness anymore and don't have motivation to do work.
I know a lot of peeps claim that this is pseudoscientific bullshit, but isn't it weird how those we would consider "normies" today were obsessed with reading romantic novels, and that that in the 1800s was frowned upon among the upper class like watching netflix today, even though those romance novels are way harder for normies today to read? Everyone remembers the novel feeling of playing a video game when they were young, probably only had like 7 games and was only allowed 2-3 hours every day if they behaved nicely, but now that we have grown up and bemassed a huge collection of steam games we feel no desire at all to play.
Is there a reason that so many religions in every corner of the world have "monks" who practice what we now call "dopamine detox"; no fun allowed, to find real untainted joy?
If I were to "detox" myself for a month, and from there on be as minimalistic as possible with dopamine rushes, would that make me feel like a child again?

My attention span is fucked beyond belief. I have no will to do anything that requieres a minimum effort, and i can only study, at the very maximum, for about 3hours each day, in between a ton of breaks. The thing is that even when i procrastinate or really have free time, i don't even enjoy it and feel exhausted nevertheless, as if i was actually working.

It wasn't always like this. I'm 22, about to turn 23, and for most of my life i was able to "function" like a normal person. I guess that being depressed doesn't help.

So, has anyone who is/was as fucked as me tried adderall? did it save you?

>>11381085
>computational horsepower to simulate a human brain on the fly
t. dualist

going whole food plant based vegan has literally turned me into a chad(8 pack, chiseled face/chin, v shape) Not to mention exercise, meditation, consistent sleep and sunlight. You can change gene expression with healthy lifestyle.

follow the science people, I thought you considered yourselves intelligent?

>>11016717
>explain me your point then

>>10972009
buy cabin in the woods and read kaczynski, Spengler and Evola in it

>>10953985
>He still thinks gamergate was anything more than a group of vidya spergs getting full triggered that some shitty depression game got some free publicity
Top kek. Let me guess, fearless kekistani red pilling normies and owning the libs everywhere you go, right?

>>10944942
>why does /sci/ have so many threads lately by anons who outright deny science?
Anonymity + white incel agenda + jannies slacking off = consequence-free anti-science shitposting

>>10918250
Climate is primarily an observational field more akin to astronomy. There are no "experiments" per se, but analysis of the empirical facts which can be independently corroborated by other teams. Even if no analysis were done, basic facts like rising CO2 emissions and green house effect from such a molecule remains an undeniable observation.

Take your cherry picking, denialist agenda garbage and stick it back to >>>/pol/.

>>10892688
>A reliable source specifically detailed and explained to denialist disinfo is bad to dispel the same old dozen arguments thrown around mindlessly in the site
You are one of those idiots who thinks everything life is just a 50/50 coin toss aren't you.

>>10879775
Why would you remove the two most glaring factors to the incel brain? Is it too triggering to face the truth?

>>10880451

>>10815522
infinity chan maybe. get of imageboards read a book about subject that is the most interesting for you

Does it reduce attention span and destroy the biological clock and psychologically mess up everything because of the consequence free posting?

>>10768607
>no evidence to suggest that rf damages DNA, causes health risks or cancer
Hmm? Doesn't that contradict your narrative of 5g radiation beeing dangerous ?