this topic: Alert for Parents, Caregivers, Educators, and Law Enforcement: Concerning Apps Utilizing AI thewhitehatter.ca/blog/alert-for-parents-caregivers-educators-and-law-enforcement-concerning-apps-utilizing-ai-pose-risks-to-youth-and-adults / Battling AI-Driven Deepfake Nudes Demands Swift Action, Collaboration, & A Change In The Selfied Culture / Deepfake technology allows the power of computer-based artificial intelligence (AI) to either: Morph that allow a user to digitally remove clothing from a picture and replace it with a very real-looking AI-generated

AI is no longer just a tool for providing information, it is now doing things for users through AI agents AI relationships offer none of that. Explain That AI Is a Tool, Not a Friend or Authority Youth and teens often experience AI as intelligent Watch for Emotional Over-Reliance on AI Companions If your youth or teen is turning to AI for emotional AI is not inherently bad.

After this series aired, it left many believing that online stranger predation was an epidemic. off "Remember Me" where possible. 8) Be Wary of Open Wi-Fi – Use a VPN Free Wi-Fi in cafés, hotels, airports

As parents and caregivers, our top priority is keeping our children safer in today’s onlife world. With growing concerns about the risks of technology and the internet, some advocate for delaying access until high school or even age 16. While this may seem like a protective measure, it can actually have unintended consequences that place youth and teens at greater risk. The delay approach to technology and the internet may have worked years ago before it became so ubiquitous. However, today, technology is an integral part of modern life. From education to social interaction, young people rely on the internet for communication, learning, and entertainment there is often no way in escaping it. While there are undeniable risks, such as exposure to harmful content, online predators, and cyberbullying to name a few, completely restricting access does not eliminate these dangers. Instead, it often pushes youth and teens toward unmonitored, unregulated digital spaces where they have little to no guidance or protection outside the home. When youth and teens are banned from using technology, social media, or engaging with digital platforms at home, they don’t stop being curious. Instead, they often seek out access elsewhere, whether through the use of a burner phone, a friend’s device, a public library’s access to the internet, public Wi-Fi, or hidden accounts. These unsupervised spaces lack the parental and caregiver oversight and security settings that could otherwise help mitigate risks. Without guidance, children are left to navigate the online world alone, increasing their exposure to potentially harmful content and situations. Rather than delaying access until a certain age, a more effective approach is to teach youth and teens how to use technology responsibly, something we call a “pave the way” approach to technology and the internet. Digital literacy is essential, and it involves several key aspects. First, youth and teens need to understand privacy settings and how to protect their personal data. Many young users do not realize the long-term consequences of oversharing information online. By teaching them early, parents and caregivers can help instil habits that promote online safety. Additionally, recognizing online risks such as scams, predators, and misinformation is critical. The internet is filled with deceptive content, especially today with the increased us of artificial intelligence, and without proper guidance, children may fall victim to online manipulation, predation, exploitation or fraud. Teaching them how to identify red flags and verify sources equips them with the skills to make safer decisions. Safer and respectful communication is another cornerstone of digital literacy. Youth and teens need to understand the importance of positive interactions online and the potential consequences of cyberbullying, harassment, or inappropriate messaging. Open discussions about responsible behaviour can help prevent negative experiences and promote a culture of kindness. Equally important is ensuring that youth and teens know where to go for help if they encounter problems online. Whether it’s reporting inappropriate content, blocking harmful users, or reaching out to a trusted adult, kids should feel empowered to take action when needed. A safer and more effective strategy for introducing technology involves several proactive steps. Early guidance is crucial and introducing age and developmentally appropriate technology under parental or caregiver supervision allows youth and  teens to develop safer online habits. This hands-on approach helps them learn how to navigate digital spaces while still having the support and oversight of a caregiver - a “pave the way” approach rather than a “delay is the way” approach. Open communication within the home plays a vital role in digital safety. Children should feel comfortable discussing their online experiences, asking questions, and seeking help without fear of punishment. When youth and teens are afraid of strict consequences, they are less likely to disclose potential issues, which can increase their vulnerability - something we can attest to anecdotally with the hundreds of teens that have reached out to us for help rather than their parent or caregiver. Yes, parental controls and boundaries are useful tools but should not replace active parenting. Setting clear expectations about screen use, appropriate online behaviour, and the types of content that are acceptable can provide structure while still allowing youth and teens to explore technology safely. However, these strategies work best when combined with open discussions about their purpose rather than being used as rigid restrictions. Leading by example is one of the most effective ways to teach responsible digital habits. Children observe how adults engage with technology, so demonstrating mindful social media use, digital etiquette, and balanced screen time can encourage them to adopt similar behaviours. We acknowledge that technology and the internet come with risks. However, completely restricting youth and teens from using them until the age of 16, or until high school, doesn’t necessarily make them safer. Instead, it can drive our kids toward unmonitored and less secure environments outside the home where protective measures are non-existent.  By guiding and mentoring youth and teens through responsible digital use from an early age, we can help them develop the critical thinking and digital literacy skills they need to navigate the onlife world confidently and securely and build agency in their use of technology. The goal is not to shield children from technology but to equip them with the knowledge and tools to use it wisely in an age and developmentally appropriate way. This is why we created our free web book for parents, “Parenting in an Online World” (1) , and offer over 500 free articles like this one on our blog (2) and how-to guides (3) pages on our website to help parents, caregivers, and educators with the information you need to stay informed.  Related Article Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech Resources: 1/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/online-parenting-book/ 2/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/ 3/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/articles-guides/

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized many aspects of modern life, offering incredible benefits Here at The White Hatter, we’ve seen firsthand how AI is being weaponized to exploit youth in alarming Deepfake technology allows users to create hyper-realistic but entirely fake images or videos by using AI AI-Based Companionship Apps That Enable Inappropriate Interactions AI-powered companionship apps, designed If your child falls victim to AI-driven exploitation, act swiftly.

Can they recognize when AI-generated content is subtly altering their perception of reality? Similarly, consider the example of AI-powered writing tools. If a student relies solely on Google or AI for quick solutions, they may not develop the perseverance

following question we received from one of our social media followers: “Do you guys discuss elections and AI From AI-generated deepfakes to weaponized private chat groups, Canadians are navigating a disinformation actors in our cyber and information space in the next federal election cycle, especially with the use of AI-generated This vacuum has since been filled with questionable content, memes disguised as news, and AI-generated think critically about how information is crafted, shared, and received online. (7) Understanding AI's

More specifically, they’re getting fed up with what some now call “AI slop”, a term used to describe It is not that all AI generated content is a problem. Many youth and teens use AI tools themselves, from editing videos, writing code, to using AI to search Although, teens are telling us that their “for you feed” is also becoming an AI slop quagmire.  Reduced Exposure to AI-Generated Content (“AI Slop”) In private spaces, especially those that are invite-only

Recruiters themselves have admitted struggling to keep up with AI-generated applications, while job seekers Amidst this AI slop, one factor continues to cut through the noise: personal connections. That single referral bypassed the AI-driven funnel entirely. Deepfakes and impostors: The brave new world of AI jobseeking . The Week. https://theweek.com/tech/deepfakes-and-impostors-the-brave-new-world-of-ai-jobseeking [10]

are left unprepared for the reality that danger often wears a smiling face (especially true now given AI

Caveat - our friends at the University of Dalhousie in Nova Scotia released a study on “Looksmaxxing” that was recently reported by the CBC news. (1)(2)  For those who have been following us for a while, you know that recently, we have been writing a lot about how the “manosphere” is influencing youth and teen boys.  Looksmaxxing is a concerning byproduct of the manosphere as you will read. This is a follow-up article to the one we just posted titled, “Masculinity Influencers Are Shaping How Young Men See Themselves - And It’s Affecting Their Mental Health” (3) Imagine being a teenage boy today, scrolling through TikTok or Instagram, and suddenly coming across a flood of videos with titles like “Transform Your Jawline in 30 Days” or “How to Looksmaxx Your Face.” These videos promise quick fixes and dramatic enhancements to one’s appearance, all under the banner of “self-improvement.” While at first glance this content may seem like a harmless push toward better grooming or fitness, it can sometimes draw you in like a black hole into a deeper and potentially dangerous trend known as “looksmaxxing.” and it’s gaining serious traction among “some” teens and young adults, especially teen boys. Looksmaxxing has also been the topic of a 2022 animated Netflix series called "Lookism" (4) which is a South Korean animated adaptation of the popular Naver webtoon of the same name. The story follows Park Hyung-seok, a high school student who, after enduring bullying due to his appearance, wakes up one day with a second body that is tall and conventionally attractive. He discovers he can switch between these two bodies, leading to a double life that explores themes of identity, beauty standards, and self-worth. “Looksmaxxing” is the term used to describe the pursuit of maximizing one's physical appearance. It often starts with basic self-care habits, like grooming and working out, but can escalate quickly to include extreme, sometimes risky methods, like cosmetic procedures or do-it-yourself (DIY) enhancements performed at home. The goal? To achieve an idealized version of physical beauty often defined by rigid and unrealistic social media standards that teen girls will crave. This movement finds its roots in online forums like looksmax(dot)org (5) , which is closely tied to a web of online communities known as the “manosphere.” (6) These forums promote not just appearance enhancement, but also serve as echo chambers for toxic ideas, including misogyny, nihilism, and self-loathing. The looksmaxxing world breaks down into two main categories: “Softmaxxing” and “Hardmaxxing.” Softmaxxing This approach involves non-invasive, lifestyle-based methods that are generally low-risk. These include: Grooming and hygiene Skin care routines (cleansing, moisturizing, sunscreen) Haircuts, beard shaping, and dental care Healthy eating and regular exercise Posture improvement and confident body language “Mewing” (tongue posture exercises claimed to enhance jaw definition) (7) Updating personal style and wardrobe Softmaxxing, when practiced in moderation, can be a healthy form of self-care. But the issue arises when these efforts become obsessive, driven by social comparison and the constant pursuit of perfection. Hardmaxxing Hardmaxxing refers to more extreme, invasive, and often expensive measures. This category includes: Cosmetic surgeries like rhinoplasty, jaw reshaping, or chin implants Non-surgical procedures like Botox or fillers Hair transplants and chemical peels DIY procedures like at-home fillers or even dangerous methods such as “face hammering” (8) to alter bone structure Steroid use and crash dieting to achieve rapid physical transformation Many of these methods are glamorized within online forums and social media posts, often with little regard for the medical or psychological risks involved. While personal improvement is not inherently problematic, looksmaxxing pushes young people toward unattainable beauty standards. The pressure to conform can lead to: Body dysmorphia Low self-esteem Depression, anxiety, and self-harm Risky or harmful behaviour, including unregulated procedures and steroid use For teen boys, who are the primary audience for looksmaxxing content, his can create a toxic loop. They’re often encouraged to believe their social value depends on their physical attractiveness and that drastic changes are necessary to be accepted, loved, or respected. At first glance, looksmaxxing seems like a superficial trend utilizing skincare tips, fitness advice, and grooming routines. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that for some, it becomes a dangerous gateway into radicalized online spaces, particularly those rooted in the “manosphere.” Here’s how it happens; a teen boy stumbles into looksmaxxing content while feeling insecure or rejected. He’s told that his worth is tied to his jawline, his height, or his eye spacing. If he doesn't “make it” through physical transformation, he's not just unattractive, he's unworthy. This black-and-white thinking primes him for the next step where he is drawn into communities that feed on that despair and promise to explain it. That’s when the rhetoric shifts. What began as beauty advice morphs into toxic narratives such as, “Women are hypergamous.”, “Only 10% of men get all the attention.”, and “If you’re not born with good looks, you’re invisible.” Some forums go even further, pushing conspiracy-like content, blaming feminism, dating apps, and even entire ethnic or social groups for their perceived lack of success. It's not just pseudoscience, it becomes a full-blown worldview. In these echo chambers, bitterness is validated, anger is nurtured, and radical ideas are dressed up as “hard truths.” For some, this spiral ends in deeper involvement in incel ideology or even participation in extremist online communities that normalize misogyny and dehumanization. The shift is subtle but powerful, moving from self-improvement to self-hatred, and then to hatred of others, primarily females. To understand how looksmaxxing exploded in popularity with some teen boys, we need to go beyond TikTok and other social media platforms, and look at the deeper cultural and technological roots that allowed it to thrive, particularly its ties to incel (involuntary celibate) communities. At its core, looksmaxxing is about optimizing one’s physical appearance, often to extreme lengths, in the hope of improving social and romantic outcomes. While this concept might sound like a standard self-improvement trend, it takes on a much darker tone in the corners of the internet where it originated. Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok helped normalize the idea that appearance is currency. TikTok’s algorithm, for example, is often believed to favour conventionally attractive users, regardless of their follower count. (9) This created an environment where beauty isn’t just admired, it’s rewarded. Social media has amplified perfectionism, leading teen boys to feel an ever-increasing pressure to meet unattainable alpha male beauty ideals. During the pandemic, with more people stuck indoors and turning to self-improvement, looksmaxxing gained traction. But its roots stretch back even further to male-dominated online forums like Reddit, lookism(dot)net (2018), which is no longer available, many of which are closely associated with incel subcultures. Historically, women have been the primary targets of beauty standards. That hasn’t changed, but in recent years, men have also come under growing pressure to embody ideals of masculinity such as sharp jawlines, broad shoulders, flawless skin. Research shows that most looksmaxxing content is targeted toward men, mirroring this shift. Within incel communities, physical attractiveness is seen as the only viable path to success in dating, work, and life. Looksmaxxing becomes not just a choice, but a survival strategy. This is where the trend becomes disturbing. In these spaces, looksmaxxing is not about feeling better, it’s about curing deep-seated insecurities with external, often harmful changes. Today, the main online spaces shaping this subculture is Looksmax.me (now rebranded as Looksmax.org as of 2024). This site caters to users seeking actionable tips on improving their appearance. Discussions include everything from mewing and skincare routines to dieting and posture correction. However, it also promotes risky practices like face hammering and at-home orthodontics. Looksmax(dot)org has become an echo chamber of insecurity, reinforcing toxic ideologies and fostering obsession with appearance.  Women are frequently dehumanized on these platforms, referred to as “femoids” and stereotyped in crude, misogynistic ways. The forums often reject the idea that self-worth can exist outside of physical attractiveness and promote “black pill” ideology, the belief that those deemed unattractive are doomed to fail no matter how hard they try. Some teen boys begin their journey on looksmaxxing forums and gradually become radicalized, moving into more extreme online manosphere spaces , where conversations shift from self-improvement to open resentment and, in some cases, hatred, violence, including self-harm. Where there's insecurity, there's someone ready to exploit it. The looksmaxxing community has given rise to a slew of predatory "coaches" who offer expensive, often useless supplements (10) or dangerous advice. These self-proclaimed experts, often operating on TikTok, Instagram, and within forums, claim to offer custom guidance to help men achieve a "Chad transformation.”, an incel term! They promise facial analyses, grooming hacks, surgical suggestions, and guaranteed results, all without credentials or scientific backing.These services can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars, with no real benefit provided.   The world of looksmaxxing isn’t just about beauty. It’s about vulnerability, toxic comparison, and a deeply flawed system of value rooted in appearance. While it might present itself as a form of self-improvement, at its core, it's a desperate response to systemic pressures and societal expectations, and it's one that often leads users down a dark and dangerous path. As we stated earlier, where there’s vulnerability, there’s often someone ready to exploit it, and the looksmaxing space is no different. These forums and TikTok comment sections have become hunting grounds for self-proclaimed “looksmaxxing experts” who offer personal coaching, promising to turn any average guy into a so-called “Alpha Chad.”  What do they offer? For a hefty price, they'll claim to analyze your facial symmetry, your jawline angle, your posture, and even your skin tone. They'll suggest routines, diets, workouts, grooming habits, and in some cases, straight-up surgical procedures, all under the illusion of scientific precision. But in reality, most of these services are built on pseudoscience, marketing buzzwords, and false hope. (11) Many of these so-called coaches charge hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars for advice that's often vague, recycled from Reddit threads, or dangerously unregulated. They use high-pressure sales tactics, buzzwords like “guaranteed results,” “black pill escape,” or “full Chad transformation,” and display fake credentials to establish false credibility. In truth, most of them have no training in dermatology, fitness, psychology, or personal development. This kind of exploitation isn’t just about draining wallets, it’s about feeding insecurities for profit. And when clients inevitably fail to meet impossible standards, they're blamed for “not trying hard enough,” reinforcing the idea that the problem isn’t the system, it’s them. As we have expressed in this article, looksmaxxing isn’t just about haircuts and gym routines, it’s a modern language of insecurity, shaped by algorithms and amplified in online echo chambers. For some teens, it’s harmless self-improvement. For others, it’s a gateway to self-loathing and extremist beliefs dressed up as empowerment. So what can you do a a parent, caregiver, or educator? Don’t mock it. Ask about it. If your teen brings up terms like looksmaxxing, bone smashing, or mewing, your first instinct might be to laugh or express disbelief. Resist that urge. Instead, be curious, not critical. Ask them: “What got you interested in this?” “Where did you first hear about it?” “How does it make you feel when you see these posts?” You might be surprised how open your teen becomes if they don’t feel judged. Teens are often looking for guidance, not lectures. By meeting them with openness, you create a space where they feel safe sharing more in the future. Teach critical thinking, not just “don’t go there.” It’s tempting to just ban certain apps or subreddits or social media platforms and be done with it. But that approach doesn’t address the underlying question your teen is really asking which is,  “Am I good enough?” Instead, help them question the content they’re consuming: “Who gains when you believe you’re not attractive enough?” “Do you think the advice you’re seeing is based on real science, or is it playing on insecurities?” “What does “attractive” even mean, and does it change depending on the person or culture?” The goal isn’t to ridicule their interest, but to arm them with the tools to see through manipulative messaging and unrealistic ideals. Watch for signs of withdrawal or despair. While some teens may explore looksmaxxing out of curiosity, others may be engaging with it in response to deeper struggles. If your teen is: Obsessing over perceived flaws, Avoiding social situations, Talking negatively about their appearance or future, Or becoming increasingly isolated, it could be a sign of anxiety, depression, or body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Looksmaxxing might be the surface-level symptom of something much more serious. Check in regularly and non-judgmentally. If you're concerned, consider speaking to a healthcare professional who understands adolescent mental health. Talk early and often about self-worth. Don't wait until your teen is down a black hole of online forums to start conversations about confidence, self-image, and what makes someone valuable. Help them explore ideas like: “What do you admire in your friends? Is it mostly about how they look?” “What makes someone a good partner, a good friend, or a good person?” “How do you want others to see you,  and how do you see yourself?” Emphasize that attractiveness is subjective, and true self-worth comes from character, compassion, resilience, and authenticity. Keep the digital dialogue open. Looksmaxxing communities often thrive in secrecy and shame. The more your teen feels they have to hide their online life from you, the more susceptible they become to harmful ideologies. Instead of monitoring or punishing, focus on digital mentorship. Say things like: “I want to understand what you’re into online.” “I know there’s a lot of weird stuff out there, let’s figure it out together.” “Even if I don’t get it at first, I promise I’ll listen.” When your teen sees you as someone they can trust to help them navigate digital culture, rather than just shut it down, you become a powerful ally in their journey toward healthy identity development. Your teen needs to understand that they can come to you no matter what, and that you will always love them no matter what! Looksmaxxing, while initially framed as a harmless push for better self-care or fitness, is far more than a superficial trend. For many teens, especially boys, it has become a toxic black hole where personal insecurities are exploited, unrealistic ideals are normalized, and self-worth becomes synonymous with physical appearance. What starts as a desire to feel more confident can quickly escalate into a cycle of obsession, self-loathing, self-harm, and even radicalization within dangerous online communities. This isn’t just about jawlines and skincare routines. It’s about a cultural shift where young men are being told that they are inherently deficient unless they conform to hyper-specific, unattainable beauty standards. These messages are amplified by algorithms, monetized by self-proclaimed “experts", and weaponized in manosphere forums where misogyny, nihilism, and black-and-white thinking flourish. What looksmaxxing often disguises as “self-improvement” is, in many cases, a conduit to deeper psychological and physical harm and radical ideologies. Parents, educators, and caregivers need to understand that this isn’t a fringe issue, it’s increasingly mainstream in the digital lives of teens. TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, and countless forums are teeming with content that praises aesthetic transformation while quietly nurturing body dysmorphia and low self-worth. We must resist the urge to dismiss these videos as vanity or harmless teenage experimentation. Instead, we must treat looksmaxxing as a red flag that deserves attention, empathy, and open conversation. The most powerful tool parents, caregivers, and educators have is connection. Rather than lecturing or banning, we must listen and ask thoughtful questions: such as, “What do you think makes someone attractive?”,  “Do you feel pressure to look a certain way?”,  “Where do you think those ideas come from?” These conversations build trust and open the door to discussions about self-esteem,  digital literacy, agency,  and critical thinking. We must also challenge the underlying message of looksmaxxing that a person’s value is determined by how they look. Whether through education, mental health support, or digital literacy, we need to reinforce that self-worth comes from within and not from a “perfect” jawline, a skincare routine, or a YouTube tutorial. Ultimately, looksmaxxing is a mirror reflecting our culture’s fixation on appearance and it’s our responsibility as parents, caregivers, and educators to shift the narrative. Let’s help teen boys understand that they are more than their image. Let’s give teen boys the tools to see through the filters, the forums, and the false promises. Let’s stand between them and the toxic voices telling them they’ll never be good enough. Because they already are! Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References  1/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/how-looksmaxxing-sites-can-harm-young-men-and-boys-1.7499752 2/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40069550/ 3/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/masculinity-influencers-are-shaping-how-young-men-see-themselves-and-its-affecting-their-mental-health/ 4/ https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81177634 5/ https://looksmax.org/ 6/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/the-rise-of-the-manosphere-a-growing-challenge-for-schools-parents-caregivers/ 7/ https://aaoinfo.org/whats-trending/is-mewing-bad-for-you/ 8/ https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2023/10/17/bone-smashing-tiktok-trend-here-are-dangers-of-hammering-your-face/ 9/ https://centennialworld.com/tiktok-new-tumblr-counters-body-positivity-movement/ 10/ https://looksmax.org/threads/list-of-supplements-for-looksmaxxing.157086/ 11/ https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/3/4/43

*** Updated May 2026 *** Chapter 8:The Dopamine Connection – Facts vs Fear Caveat - This article isn’t over whether dopamine plays some role in rewarding or motivating behaviour. Of course it does. The disagreement is over whether we have sufficient evidence to describe ordinary social media use as producing drug-like dopamine spikes that lead to tolerance, desensitization, and addiction through the same neurobiological mechanisms as substances such as cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine as is often stated online and in some popular books We do believe that online problematic behaviour is emotionally, psychologically, physically, and socially multifactorial in its cause and effects. However, we do take issue with the narrative that some promote about the “addicitve” effects of dopamine when it comes to online gaming and social media, which is just not supported in current evidence-based peer-reviewed research. As Dr Vijay Namboodiri, professor of neurology at the University of California San Francisco, stated in this 2023 interview that such narratives "... are not necessarily based on actual science of what we know about dopamine" bit.ly/3JQrHbd As researcher Catherine Knibbs stated in her book “Children, Technology and Healthy Development”: “We humans are more complicated than these dopamine hits, reward and motivation circuits, and behaviours that may seem to be based in the addiction narrative” For years now, we have been hearing and reading about how gaming, smartphones, or social media “addiction” is the result of the “dopamine loop” which is similar, some say identical, to the dopamine loop in substance addiction. As researchers Tommy Blanchard and Dean Burnett state, "The thesis is: pleasure = Bad, Dopamine = Pleasure, ipso facto, Dopamine = Bad." therefore for cellphones and screen that bring pleasure increases dopamine and ipso facto bad. https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/what-did-dopamine-do-to-deserve-this Just recently we watched the Netflix show, “The Social Dilemma”, which some call a polemic rather than a documentary, where the association of substance addiction, dopamine, online gaming, and cellphones was a common narrative. https://bit.ly/353TyzV Our questions – Are these comments, opinions, and suppositions based upon good research, or are they just being used as a scare tactic given its comparison and association with substance abuse? Additionally, is the issue surrounding problematic internet usage more nuanced than just the dopamine loop? The widespread notion by some digitial literacy and internet safety advocates that social media triggers "dopamine hits" leading to addiction lacks research support. Mark D. Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction at the International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, notes, "the idea that dopamine 'hijacks the brain' and leads to 'compulsive loops' are analogies used in the media rather than terms used by scientists." We are not scientists, brain doctors, cognitive or developmental psychologists, or neuro-chemists but as a retired police officer of 30 years, Darren is a trained investigator. When he was looking to obtain a conviction in court, he needed to provide evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged was guilty of that crime. This took evidence. Sometimes to solve a crime, especially a historical crime, investigators start with a hypothesis that seems plausible, but as the investigator follows the evidence, it’s not uncommon that the initial hypothesis becomes implausible. Investigators are always careful not to allow just enough evidence to make a hypothesis plausible, thus why, much like in academia, an independent third-party review takes place so that the evidence collected has not been over interpreted or ignored. This is especially true when it comes to forensic evidence. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays a crucial role in the brain and body. It belongs to the group of chemicals called catecholamines and phenethylamines. It is involved in memory, reward pathways, and motor coordination, particularly in relation to Parkinson's disease. Dopamine is released by neurons and sends signals to other nerve cells in the central nervous system. Presently, research has found that the human brain comprises four primary dopamine pathways, which are connections linking different regions of the brain and serving as channels for neurotransmitters, chemical messengers. Each pathway is associated with distinct cognitive and motor functions - the mesocortical, mesolimbic, and nigrostriatal pathways. The fourth pathway, the tuberoinfundibular pathway, regulates the secretion of prolactin, a hormone necessary for milk production. When it comes to how dopamine affects humans, "it has become traditional to label dopamine neurons as ‘reward’ neurons, this is an overgeneralization, and it is important to distinguish between aspects of motivation that are differentially affected by dopaminergic manipulations” https://bit.ly/2Tcx11e. Yes, fast spikes in dopamine can be triggered anytime we encounter something we like or find pleasurable; eating a chocolate bar, working out, kissing your partner, and yes playing a video game or engaging in social interaction via social media https://bit.ly/3pGv8pU. It shouldn’t surprise us that dopamine is released when we engage in online gaming or social media on our devices. We think it is also important to know that dopamine is not an on/off process and is steadily released in smaller levels throughout the day. In fact, low levels of dopamine are one of the contributing factors of Parkinson’s disease https://bit.ly/3wdapfy. So, dopamine can be released quickly when we encounter something we like, especially when unexpected, or slowly throughout the day for brain and body health. Not only is dopamine an important neurotransmitter for learning and movement control, but it also plays a role in memory, attention, mood, cognition, and even sleep. It is also important to understand that dopamine is not what makes you feel good. As Clinical Psychologist Dr. David Ley stated, “When a person is about to experience pleasure, dopamine is released in the brain, and in the parts of the brain that experience and process pleasure. Dopamine’s role here is NOT that it makes you feel good. It doesn’t—the pleasure and hedonic or euphoria feeling come from opioids in the brain, neurochemicals that increase pleasure and deaden the pain. Dopamine’s role in pleasure and reward is that it helps your brain to recognize “incentive salience.” This means that it’s like a little red flag to your brain, saying “hey, pay attention, this is about to feel good, and you want to remember this, so you can do it again.” A critical issue here is that a lack of dopamine doesn’t actually make the experience feel less good. In studies with rats, where dopamine was suppressed, rats showed “normal hedonic reaction patterns,” and still showed normal pleasure responses even though dopamine was suppressed.” As author Mark Humphries stated in his 2017 article "The Crimes Against Dopamine" stated: "It is not reward. Dopamine neurons do not fire when you get something good. They fire when you get something unexpected. And they sulk when you don't get something you expected. Rewards make you happy. Dopamine does not" Based on the research surrounding dopamine that we were able to locate, or that was sent to us, it’s not that dopamine is the problem, it’s the amount released and its frequency that can be the problem. This is what those who promote the dopamine loop as their lynchpin argument to draw a comparison to substance addiction (drugs and alcohol) fail to understand or even report. It is important to note that the dopamine hypothesis to drug addiction was first published in 1987 in a paper called "A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction" https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-14197-001 which was used as the keystone for a 1997 Time magazine article titled "Addicted: Why Do People Get Hooked" where they used the earlier mentioned 1987 research as it's main thesis as to why dopamine was to blame for all kinds of addictions. We do think it’s important to understand that there are two types of recognized addictions: Substance addictions, such as drugs and alcohol, and Behaviour addictions, such as gambling It should be noted that the only behavioural addiction to be recognized by the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5) is gambling disorder https://bit.ly/3gm4dLD . There is still a significant amount of debate on whether other less recognized forms of impulsive behaviours, such as compulsive buying, compulsive sex, or problematic online gaming can be conceptualized as addictions in the DSM5. Having said this, in 2019 the World Health Organization recognized gaming disorder in the new edition of its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) https://bit.ly/3zeWwPU. So, for those who continue to promote the word addiction to describe problematic online behaviour, they do so in error (sometimes purposely in our opinion) not based upon the current evidence-based research, the DSM5, or even the ICD-11 that uses the word “disorder” purposely. Distinguishing between problematic online behaviour and the word addiction is important. In 30 years of policing, Darren witnessed first-hand what true substance addiction looked like; we can assure you that it is nowhere near the same as those contraindications observed in online problematic behaviour. However, we want to emphasize that both are concerning for sure. Those who continue to push the narrative of online gaming addiction, social media addiction, or phone addiction, based upon opinion or by skewing the good evidence-based research to meet their narrative, are downplaying the emotional, psychological, physical and social sufferings of those with true substance addiction. As Neuroscientist Dean Burnett stated in this article https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/what-did-dopamine-do-to-deserve-this, “Addiction is an important clinical term with a troubled and weighty history. People enduring genuine addiction struggle to be taken seriously or viewed sympathetically at the best of times, so to apply their very serious condition to much more benign actions like scrolling TikTok makes this worse.” Now let’s get back to dopamine! The research clearly shows that no matter what the substance addiction or problematic behaviour, dopamine will be released, but the amount of dopamine released is important to understand. Specific to online gaming (behaviour based), we could only find one peer-reviewed research study specific to video games https://go.nature.com/2SmmhgI. In this study, the researchers found that the levels of dopamine released in the brain raised by 100%. Although this number appears to be concerning, activities such as meditation increase dopamine by 65% the same can be said about having sex and other pleasurable activities https://bit.ly/3cuzFWZ https://to.pbs.org/3pKaLYL Credit: Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse Now here’s what’s interesting – meditation, sex, gambling or even online gaming are behaviours, when you look at substance addiction such as alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine, there is a clear pathology that can trigger dopamine level spikes by over 1000%. Once again, the intensity differences between problematic gaming behaviour and substance addiction, based on the research, are clear when it comes to the levels of dopamine released. Those who intimate or even say that online problematic behaviour is the same as substance addiction because of the dopamine loop are just being disingenuous. *** Update May 2026 *** This new study is important because it does not support the popular claim that social media “floods the brain with dopamine.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492726000090?utm_source=chatgpt.com Researchers used a brain imaging method called neuromelanin-sensitive MRI, which can act as a rough marker of dopamine-related functioning. They studied 72 young adults aged 18 to 35 and compared their scores on a problematic social media use scale with dopamine-related brain markers. They found no significant relationship between higher problematic social media use and the dopamine marker they measured. For parents, the takeaway is this: Social media may still feel rewarding because likes, comments, notifications, and social validation can activate the brain’s reward system. However, this study suggests we should be careful about saying social media works like a drug or that it directly “floods” the brain with dopamine. The science is more nuanced!!! What would be fair to say, research is showing us that although substance addiction and problematic online behaviour may use the same dopamine pathway, they are not similar in intensity, cause, and effect. As Dr. Markey and Dr. Ferguson stated in their book Moral Combat, there are billions of people young and old playing video games around the world, if online gaming was as addictive as drugs, then why don’t we have a massive world epidemic specific to this issue? https://bit.ly/3v8Yhv1 As Dr. Daniel Kardefelt-Winther stated in a 2021 article “Do internet addiction and gaming disorders exist?” https://bit.ly/3c1bvmo “In a very simplified version, some people say when you use digital technology, dopamine is released in the brain because of particular features of that technology. And that provides us with a nice feeling, and people argue that we become dependent on that dopamine release and the nice feeling it provides us, which then causes addictive behaviour because we want more of it. This perspective misses the fact that dopamine is released when we do a lot of things. For example, it’s involved in learning processes. You get dopamine released from many things that are interesting and rewarding. So why do we think this is a big deal when it comes to technology? We don’t talk about people being addicted to learning, even though dopamine is released here as well. The argument about dopamine being a causal driver for substance addiction has also been questioned by many researchers who have found that substance intake that is not associated with significant amounts of dopamine release can also be addictive. My point is not to say that dopamine doesn’t matter in these processes, but that the proposed causal impact of it continues to be exaggerated.” Although activities like gambling, watching pornography, internet use, and playing video games don’t stimulate as much dopamine release as drugs do, they can lead to patterns of behavior similar to those seen in substance use disorder — namely, continuing the activity despite severe negative consequences. As Dr Jacqueline Nesi stated: " We know from decades of research on “variable reward schedules” that when rewards are unpredictable, we will do a behavior over and over to get the reward (think slot machines)" Some who promote the dopamine loop addiction narrative will point to a 2015 study titled Relationship Between Peripheral Blood Dopamine Level and Internet Addiction Disorder in Adolescents: A Pilot Study to support their position https://bit.ly/3w8gIRC. The conclusion of this study is: “In conclusion, these results of the present study provided evidence in favour of the hypothesis that dopamine played an important role in the development and maintenance of Internet addiction. This study preliminary affirmed the effect of dopamine in IAD, though the details about dopamine’s action are still unclear. Moreover, the present study prompted that dopamine in peripheral blood plasma might be an easily accessible candidate as biological markers for future research into the mechanisms of Internet addiction.” A couple of points that these same groups fail to identify in this study: This study attempted to measure Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) to do this they used something called the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). The means and process used to measure Internet Addiction Disorder has come under academic scrutiny. The effects identified in this study are extremely small. The group they identified as addicted had levels only 58% higher than the control. Remember the study mentioned earlier that found a 65% increase in dopamine when engaging in meditation. The authors actually state, “…our results in this study is opposite of the conclusion” In other words the study found that the test group did not appear to have developed any level of tolerance to dopamine. As Matthew Johnson (MediaSmarts) shared with me, “this challenges the idea of using addiction as a frame to analyze the behaviour.” Good point! Another important and easily understood perspective that Mathew Johnson shared with us, about this specific study, “It’s not surprising that there would be a correlation between dopamine levels and a high score on the IAT because what the IAT questions measures is using the internet for pleasure or avoiding displeasure. For example, question 2 is ‘Do you feel the need to use the internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction (though note the lack of tolerance identified in the study), ‘do you feel restless, moody, (etc.) when attempting to cut down or stop internet use’) and ‘Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood.’ In other words, people who use the internet to make themselves happier produce more dopamine when they use the internet and are likely to want to keep using the internet to avoid a dopamine crash – exactly as one would expect with any pleasurable activity that becomes a habit. Again, though, the dopamine is really the effect and not the cause.” As Dr Steven Quartz who specializes in Computational Neuroscience and dopamine stated in a 2024 message on the platform X "The idea of easy dopamine is a relic of the outdated pleasure theory of dopamine. It gets things backwards- dopamine encodes the cost of effort. And it’s particularly unhelpful for understanding problematic social media use, which requires current theories of compulsive behavior as aberrant learning in complex information and reward landscapes." Parents and caregivers are being bombarded with claims that “quick dopamine hits” from social media and gaming drain motivation, damage the brain, and create addiction. These messages get packaged as neuroscience, but they’re not. Much of what circulates online about dopamine and technology is pseudoscience, and it can leave families worried about dangers that aren’t supported by actual research. Those who study dopamine for a living often point to this trend as the “cheap dopamine” theory. It sounds scientific, but it misrepresents how the brain works. Dr. Steven Quartz (PhD), one of the world’s leading dopamine researchers, explains it plainly in a November 25th 2025 posting on his X Account: “Cheap dopamine is a meme built on bad neuroscience… an updated version of old arguments about ‘low pleasures.’ We don’t need faux dopamine talk to follow ideas that date back to Plato.” Dr. Quartz also notes that this narrative gets the biology wrong. Dopamine isn’t a fuel tank that runs dry. It doesn’t get “depleted” by scrolling or gaming. The popular idea that dopamine receptors get worn out by everyday digital activity ignores decades of research on how tightly dopamine is regulated through synthesis and reuptake. His words are direct: “Dopamine doesn’t deplete like a bank account… everyday experiences don’t empty some ‘dopamine gas tank.’ Metaphors can be useful, but they should reflect the science, not distort it.” This is why parents and caregivers need to be cautious when they encounter dramatic claims framed as brain science. Fear-based explanations spread quickly, but they often oversimplify or ignore what the neuroscience community actually understands about motivation, reward, and human behaviour. Kids deserve guidance rooted in evidence, not anxiety driven by catchy but misleading ideas. So, what does all this mean to us parents? Yes, both behaviour (meditation, working out, or playing a video game) and substances (drugs and alcohol) appear to follow the same brain pathways when it comes to the release of dopamine. As a social media researcher and colleague of ours stated, “Social media isn’t problematic because it produces dopamine any more than Doritos are bad because they produce dopamine – Doritos are bad because they are full of fat and very little else and are carefully engineered to get you to buy more Doritos” Research to date shows that online gaming and cellphones are not inherently addictive, what the research is showing is that the hyper-social environments they provide can lead to problematic behaviour if it’s not mediated, especially at younger ages. There is very little peer-reviewed research that provides evidence that online gaming or the use of social media (behaviour) via cellphone or computer will cause the same intensity of dopamine as does drugs or alcohol (substance) addiction. In fact, there is some good research that shows that the dopamine effect from computer use is totally different than that experienced in substance abuse https://bit.ly/3wAZA80 Drugs work directly on the dopamine system, while behaviours, by definition, work indirectly A person or organization that uses the dopamine loop as their reason why online gaming, smartphones, or the use of social media can be as addictive as substances (drugs, alcohol) is doing so as a red herring and is promoting a juvenoic narrative that is not based upon any good academic or current peer-reviewed research. Rather than using the term addiction, which is not supported in the academic literature, parents should use the term problematic behaviour or problematic habituation which is recognized by academic researchers. Semantics are important! We need to start talking about the person and work towards understanding the behavioural and motivational factors surrounding problematic behaviour. Let’s stop externalizing problematic behaviour by focusing on dopamine addiction as the cause. Brain research is also showing us that when it comes to problematic gaming, regions in the brain that involve attachment-seeking behaviour, which also involves reward and motivational circuits, do overlap the dopamine paths. So which is it – addiction because of dopamine, motivation, or reward? Research has shown that the average person who is not an academic, scientist, or medical doctor can be convinced that something is medically true via explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive scientific information https://bit.ly/3cxPoVk . Just because something is repeated many times doesn’t necessarily make it true, especially by those lay people with no medical or scientific background, who misrepresent the research to support their narrative. Anything taken in excess can become problematic. Ice cream is delicious and makes people feel good, but too much can also make you sick. The same can be said about online gaming and social media. It’s all about balance, or what Jocelyn Brewer calls a “blended” onlife approach to everything in our lives As Dr. Christopher Ferguson (PhD) stated in a recent article he published in Psychology Today, “Moral panics over media have existed since the time of the ancient Athenians (it was Greek plays back then). For some reason, some natural human biases make it difficult for us to learn from the history of past moral panics (such as comic books in the 1950s, or Dungeons and Dragons in the 1980s) and present a balanced and nuanced view of current data. Instead, more often, parents have to sift through scaremongering claims that misrepresent the science” https://bit.ly/3zhpe2Q. So why is it that some in the digital literacy and internet safety sphere like to blame what they call "internet addiction" on dopamine? As writer Mark Humphries stated: " What is the root of these crimes against dopamine? A prime suspect is that, in trying to explain what it does, writers have chosen to leave out the wrong words. The main research papers on dopamine call its fast, large spike (and its fast, sulking pause) the “reward prediction error system”. A bit of a mouthful; and hard to remember. So textbooks and popular science articles shorten this to the easier “reward system”. Even the esteemed journal Nature, when reporting on the Brain Prize, called dopamine the “reward system”. But it is not. “Reward” is precisely the word they should have left out. We can replace the word “reward” with the word “outcome”, and it makes not one jot of difference to the theory. Yet by calling it the “reward system”, the mental leaps to happiness, pleasure, emotion and all the other crimes are easy ones to make. No, it is the other words – “prediction” and “error” – that are the key. Dopamine is a prediction error system." Where will future research take us, we don’t know, but we look forward to more evidence-based research when it comes to the onlife world. If we had one wish, it would be that the academic and scientific community make their research more understandable to those of us who look to them for guidance. Not to do so, as Dr. Ferguson stated, only causes parents to, “sift through scaremongering claims that misrepresent the science” Now some are trying to ban all technology out of the classroom because of the spector of dopamine, which just isn't supported in the reach as can be read in this article we wrote https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/schools-ed-tech-dopamine-and-learning-challenging-a-current-fear-based-narrative/ Fact based on the good research mentioned in this article is that dopamine is involved in social media use, just as it is involved in eating, exercise, learning, music, social connection, anticipation, and countless other human experiences. Its involvement does not, by itself, prove addiction. The popular narrative that every swipe, like, or notification creates a dopamine spike that progressively desensitizes the brain and causes addiction is a much stronger scientific claim, and one that requires direct evidence rather than repetition of a compelling neuroscience metaphor that has flooded public discussion surrounding youth and their sometimes problematic use of technology and social media. Here’s a great video from our Friend Dr Rachel Kowert https://youtu.be/4BCryhR00Do