I think it was a bit of a sleight of hand to make it about time. Because time is quantifiable. You can give 5 minutes of your time but I figure most people can attest that has little to do with how much actual attention you’re giving. And it’s attention that we crave. That’s what social media is built upon. When you really love and enjoy something or someone, you’re thinking of it, even if you’re not actively engaged with it. And on the other hand, if you give something attention for long enough, you do start to develop some kind of an attachment on it ( which easily becomes unhealthy too, like doom scrolling ).
And what are those? There’s actually a few reasons I’m asking and not just looking it up online.
One of the reasons is that a 5 second search on neurobiology does not give me actual understanding. It just gives me a free-floating data point. And I wouldn’t offer that data point to others because it’s not coming from a place of real understanding.
You’re reading words on a screen either way.
Who do you think is a better source:
Unless you mean something else that I’m not receiving.
I appreciate that you seem to think that my brain is any better than that an low-effort and low quality idiot but it’s not.
The neurotransmitter person gave a quite confident account about the nature of attention and nature of human psychology. They clearly felt it was relevant to the point I was making. Surely someone like this has an university level degree in the subject and isn’t just a random computer nerd who occasionally consumes some pop-science content online. It makes more sense to me to dip into their reservoir of knowledge instead of making a feeble attempt at reading some AI Summary on the topic.
I was referring to myself as the alternative. But yes, maybe they’ll explain it well.
I’ll yield to them.