I should have known what I was letting myself in for when I read the phrase "Science-Backed" in the subtitle. Anything using that phrase post-Covid has an agenda baked into it, and the same is true here.
I'm quickly learning that it isn't a phrase that ever held much meaning because science is a process, not a conclusion, and the "science-backed" facts one side uses to support their arguments are no less valid than the "science-backed" facts that the other side uses to support theirs. The devil, as always, is in the details, so don't gloss over those details with the phrase "Science-Backed" and expect to get away with it in 2024.
Sure enough, within the opening chapters, the author points to so-called "misinformation" about COVID-19, cherry-picking the most extreme and obviously lunatic examples to prove her point. She throws out a blanket statement about vaccines and autism as though the fact that she is correct is self-evident, without ever going into details about why that is the correct point of view. She talks about people speaking out against climate change when there is so much evidence that it is real, while ignoring that evidence exists that brings such a conclusion either into doubt, or at least tempers the extremities that pro climate change arguments are taken to. She references bodies like the World Health Organisation as though anything coming out of them was self-evidently factual and above reproach when we all know that's far from true.
To be clear, I am not an expert in these topics, nor do I necessarily say that any of her assertions are wrong. I am just saying that if there is one thing I have learnt over the last few years, it's that you should never trust someone just because they are a so-called expert. If they are right, they should be able to explain why they are right. The old phrase "Trust me, I'm a doctor" just doesn't fly anymore. Throwing out these statements as self-evident fact without any support reeks of ideological thinking and political propaganda in 2024, and it quickly turned me off this book.
Where I had enough, though, was when she started making semantic arguments rather than substantive ones. No one I've ever heard promote the dopamine detox has ever claimed that you are cutting dopamine out of your life. Instead, they are trying to get you to reduce the toxic activities that produce high dopamine rewards so you can re-sensitise yourself to the dopamine response you get from positive activities. The phrase "Dopamine Detox" is a catchy title, not a scientific description. The same is true for her example about parents not letting their children play video games and calling it something to do with anti-dopamine (I forget the actual name). The fact that it isn't actually an anti-dopamine movement is a distinction without a point.
I came to this book hoping to understand dopamine better so that I could balance pleasure and purpose to become a better person, but I could only get 25% of the way through the book before the author lost all credibility in my mind and I couldn't read any further.