reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Research indicates a correlation between phone proximity during study and academic performance: students who keep their phones farther away achieve higher GPAs. Furthermore, the research suggests people use cell phones as adult pacifiers, reaching for them when feeling awkward, anxious, or bored. The rise in social media popularity since 2004 coincides with a notable decrease in face-to-face social interaction.

Andrew Marino, a physicist and a lawyer, was the physicist and lawyer for Dr. Robert In fact, he was the guy that made good on Albert St. Georgie’s prediction that proteins were semiconductors. He worked for the military and did studies on the sanguine antenna built in Wisconsin to track submarines and found out that they caused problems. Information was delivered to the military in 1973, and Becker found that there was a lot more problems with electromagnetic pollution that’d be uncovered between Niagara Falls and New York City with power lines. When the military wouldn’t listen to him, he went on TV with Wallace on sixty Minutes, polled the nation, and literally a couple weeks after that, his lab was completely defunded. And remember, this guy was three times nominated for the Nobel Prize. The reason it never made waves, because remember, nobody back then had a salt on and nobody had a microwave oven, only the red. K? And just so you know, this was on the front page of the Boston Globe in 1977. So Marino was the guy, the physicist in his lab, who actually in congressional testimony in the early seventies, actually told the government, leading the congress, this is published in the archives. You can go read it yourself, satellites above the earth affected the magnetosphere, 80,000 kilometers from base stations on the surface of the earth. So the proof is there, my friend, but they've ignored it. So if you read his book, it's called Going Somewhere written by Andrew Marino. When I hear scientists tell me that non ADVMF can affect us because it's not ionizing radiation, that book alleviates all of them. The other thing I would say, his Roland Van Wyck’s book is beautiful to lay out all the stuff about biophotons and the stuff that the Russians have found and the biophoton research done by the Japanese and the Europeans. It's well researched. All the stuff about quantum mechanically has happened in biology from 2007 to current. We know that it's operational in photosynthesis. You now have books out written by Jim L. Callely and John Joy McFadden. The Life at the End where you'll learn about the Klitschko's experiment with European robins to figure out how birds navigate utilizing libido reception and free radical signaling in their eyes through cryptochromes. In other words, this science is well laid out. The problem is, it's not well known. And in your podcast, I'm laying out the reason why it's not well known because if you really knew what's really published, you probably wouldn't put he Jobs iPhone up to the side of your head and then you'll read Isaacson's biography and realize why Jobs didn't let his own kids use it. Why? Remember, every time Steve Jobs went to an iMac conference, everybody remembers his worn out popular Levi's. Remember that he died from a retroperitoneal camp. Don't ever forget that. Don't ever forget the story of the iPad that had an infrared detector based into it that Apple never marketed. Do you know why that was in there? Because when a child got an iPad and it touched its leg, you would turn off RF and microwave emission. So that tells you that Apple knew exactly what was going on. But they never marketed it because you would ask the question, why do you have an infrared turn on? The reason is simple, my friend. All the people listening to this, most of the young people, their digital babysitter is their iPhone and their iPad that they hand kids. And they're causing brain damage in every single child because that blue light is ruining the melanopsin sickling everywhere in their body. But the reason why that's good is because you're creating obedient idiots to make TikTok videos in the future.

I'm a brainwashing expert, and I am personally terrified of short form social media like that. And I'm not immune. And I'm one of the best in the world, and I am not immune to it. And I think that should be a stark warning for a lot of people. What's the cost, though? What's the cost of the life, in your view, of living this kind of life where we go home and we just burn our brains out with these social media apps and fry our dopamine receptors? Is there a cost? Yeah. I think the cost is increased loneliness. And that these apps any app that sells ads has two main goals. Number one, and all advertising shares these two main goals. Number one, make you compare yourself to other people in unhealthy ways. Number two, make you think I am not enough, and we see that everywhere. I'm not enough, and I'm comparing myself to other people, and it gets us into an us versus them. Then it traps you into a corner of confirmation bias. Whatever you think, I'm gonna show you this group of a 150 people that agree with you. No matter how stupid, how radical, how absolutely bizarre your ideas are. Let me show you all of these people. And then you start thinking the whole world's like that. So really quickly, what happens when we conglomerate people together? Like, I've only been in New York once in my life, but we're in New York right now. I'm looking at my hotel. I was like struggling to find a piece of nature. Like, I think I have more trees on my property than they're in the whole city here. So on the whole, when you squeeze people together, have you heard of the bystander effect? So there there's a very good experiment that was led by doctor Phillips and Barto that they did at Liverpool Street Station. Oh, in London? In London. Yeah. Okay. So right at Liverpool Street, there's three or four steps to get up to the main. So from the street, there's a curb, and then there's three or four steps. They had this woman laid out on the ground wearing like a normal skirt and top, and I think 395 people either walked by her or stepped over her. And then they did it with a guy. And then they did it with a guy who's holding a beer, and he's asking for help. And they they it may have changed all these variables. But it's happened in New York City before. There's a woman named Kitty Genovace in the sixties, I think just two blocks from here, who was stabbed to death in front of, like, 55 witnesses. Don't quote me on that number. And no one called the police until much, much later, mostly because everyone thought somebody else would act. But if I described to you saying, watched a person get stabbed, and three people just watched, and they watched it happen. Would you say that that's psychopathy? That's a psychopath. So these large cities and stuff and the apps that are messing with the social part of our brain that makes us think the tribe is way bigger than our brains are made to handle causes this almost psychopathic behavior, which the bystander effect has been proven hundreds of times as an experiment.

Speaker 0 describes an experiment in which young white rats were placed directly in front of a TV set for the same time periods as bean plants and children exhibiting tired child syndrome symptoms. Using semi time lapse photography, partially speeding up the action, the results show that the young rats on the left, protected only with black photographic paper, became aggressive and more difficult to manage. In contrast, those on the right, protected with a lead shield, remained perfectly normal and docile. Autopsies were performed on all of these animals, revealing brain tissue damage in the rats protected only with the black paper, but not in those protected with the lead shielding.

A study from MIT's Media Lab found that using AI weakens brain connectivity and reduces memory of the work produced. Participants using large language models struggled to recall what they wrote, unlike those using search engines or their own brains. Mark Zuckerberg envisions AI friends, shifting human interaction into the computing realm. Studies show excessive screen use in children correlates with socio-emotional problems, creating a negative feedback loop. The smartphone addiction inventory was created in 2014 due to rising addiction, with research indicating that phone overuse negatively alters the brain. The mere presence of a smartphone reduces cognitive capacity. However, the brain has neuroplasticity and can recover. Pavel Durov, creator of Telegram, rarely uses a phone due to distraction, privacy concerns, and a preference for focused work on a laptop. He avoids consuming short-form content on phones.

Andrew Marino, a physicist and a lawyer who worked for doctor Robert Inkbeck, is the guy who made good on Albert St. Georgie’s prediction that proteins were semiconductors. He worked for the military and did studies on the sanguine antenna built in Wisconsin to track submarines, and found out they caused problems. Information was delivered to the military in 1973, and then Becker found out there were a lot more problems with electromagnetic pollution that’d be uncovered between Niagara Falls and New York City with power lines. When the military wouldn’t listen to him, he went on TV with 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace, polled the nation, and literally a couple weeks after that, his lab was completely defunded and all the military money was taken away. Marino was three times nominated for the Nobel Prize. The reason it never made waves is that back then nobody had a cell phone, nobody had a microwave oven, only the RIP. This was on the front page of the Boston Globe in 1977. Marino was the physicist in his lab who actually gave congressional testimony in the early seventies, telling the government, published in the archives, that satellites above the earth affected the magnetosphere 80,000 kilometers from base stations on the surface of the earth. The proof is there, but they've ignored it. If you read his book, Going Somewhere, written by Andrew Marino, you’ll understand. When scientists tell me that non-ADVMF can affect us because it's not ionizing radiation, that book alleviates all of them. Roland Van de Wick’s book is cited as beautiful for laying out biophotons and the biophoton research done by the Russians, and the Japanese and the Europeans. It’s well researched, and all the stuff about quantum mechanics in biology from 2007 to current has happened; we know it’s operational in photosynthesis. There are books Life at the Edge by Jim L. Callely and John Joy McFadden, which discuss the Klitschko experiments with European robins to figure out how birds navigate utilizing lead meter reception and free radical signaling in their eyes through cryptocrons. In other words, this science is well laid out, but not well known. The reason it’s not well known, as laid out in the podcast, is because if you really knew what’s published, you probably wouldn’t put your iPhone next to your head and read Isaacson’s biography and realize why Jobs didn’t let his own kids use it. Jobs died from a retroperitoneal cancer. The story of the iPad had an infrared detector built in that Apple never marketed, because when a child touched it to their leg, you would turn off RF and microwave emission. That suggests Apple knew what was going on. The reason is simple: most young people’ s digital babysitter is the iPhone and iPad handed to kids, and they’re causing brain damage in every child because blue light is ruining melanopsin signaling everywhere in their body, which, the argument goes, is good because it’s making obedient idiots to make TikTok videos in the future.

Exposure to screen type light between the hours of 11PM and 4AM activates a specific circuit in a brain area called the habenula that lowers dopamine and creates a sense of disappointment. So it's pro depressive. That's straight from the discussion that followed: “from 11PM to 4AM, if you're on your phone, if you're looking at a TV or iPad or screen consistently, it's going to make you more depressed.” It was noted that “in theory, yes,” but in practice you would have to do that pretty consistently. The conversation also clarified that it’s the brightness of light, not the color of the light, that matters. Measures to mitigate include dimming it way, way down, or wearing glasses or using biohacking stuff. The claim was reiterated: “the studies by multiple groups are showing that from 11PM to 4AM, if you're on your phone… it’s going to make you more depressed.” The response added that there isn’t just one exposure; rather, “it's not like one exposure,” and “it's going to dim dopamine” or “blunt dopamine.”

They literally went into the rooms. They went into these babies' rooms, in over 50 households. They literally measured the physical EMF radiation that was in the babies' rooms. That accounts for smart TVs, baby monitors, cellular tower distance, and Wi-Fi. All this stuff combined contributes to this total EMF load here. And those babies who were in the high EMF rooms, high EMF households suffered triple increased risks of neurodevelopmental disorders, and they accounted for below birth rate. So this wasn't because they were born too early. They accounted for income. It wasn't because, you know, they had a lot of money and a lot of, you know, going to the doctors often and getting screened. It appeared because it was due to these little babies that are just developing, getting bombarded with artificial electromagnetic radiation, which appears to be influencing their development process.

Their phone farther away while studying do better in school. The farther the phone, the higher the GPA. And there's more. Research also shows that when we feel awkward, anxious, or bored, we reach for our phones the way a toddler reaches for a comfort object. In other words, cell phones are effectively adult pacifiers. Now, here's what's really troubling. The research on phones and face to face interaction. The surging popularity of social media since 2004 parallels a striking decline in time spent socializing in person over the same period.

Digital technology may disrupt or lower baseline dopamine levels. Multitasking with digital devices layers in dopamine, which may contribute to increased depression and lack of motivation. The speaker noticed decreased focus and pleasure during workouts when bringing a phone. The speaker realized that layering too many enjoyable activities, like working out, listening to music and podcasts, and communicating with people, led to an excessive dopamine increase. This ultimately diminished the workout's effectiveness and the speaker's motivation.

TikTok was described as the “number one destroyer” of the ability to attend, focus, and develop executive function, and therefore as the “number one destroyer of human potential” because it is so widely used. The speaker said TikTok is the most addictive, noting that in their class of 35 students, each year there are one or two students who are on TikTok about six hours a day, which makes it difficult for them to do homework and prevents them from seeing friends. The speaker compared TikTok to “the fentanyl of social media,” and explained the reasoning by contrasting it with other social media. They said most social media developed around the idea of social networks or a “social graph,” with platforms like Facebook and Instagram recommending content based on people the user knows. In contrast, the speaker said TikTok was the first to disregard the social network and instead look at “micro delays” when a user pauses on a video. As an example, they said that if someone paused on an exercise video, the algorithm would then recommend dieting content, based on findings that girls who paused on exercise were interested in being thinner. The speaker also said that journalists have demonstrated this by setting up a fake account for a 13- or 14-year-old girl, after which the account would be quickly inundated with eating disorder content, including pro-anorexia material. They characterized TikTok as “magic” at sucking attention from a child’s brain. They concluded by stating that nobody should be on TikTok, and that certainly no one under age 18 should be on it.

Speaker 0 Stop multitasking. Here are three ways it's destroying your brain, including texting when you're watching TV. MRI scans of people who multitask show reduced brain density in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain that controls emotional intelligence and attention. Multitasking burns up oxygen and glucose in the brain faster, making us tired faster. Focusing on more than one task means the left and right sides of the brain have to work independently, so the brain's focus is split and there’s a higher chance of mistakes.

The video frames “brain rot” as a modern epidemic and outlines a plan to heal the brain’s dopamine receptors. A dinner-hour near-miss after a phone-scrolled crossing illustrates how minds are more connected to phones than reality. The speaker promises root causes and practical solutions you can start within two to four weeks to improve focus and daily functioning. Root causes include chronic dopamine stimuli from tablets, technologies, and TV shows, with chronic TikTok use leading to many different emotions within five minutes of scrolling, making the brain unsure of what’s real. This emotional barrage can damage the amygdala, affecting emotion processing and decisions. Additional factors include frying the brain before bed and upon waking; blue light leads to poor sleep and a lack of REM, which is essential for recovery. Sleep quality, plus a lack of deep work and constant multitasking, undermine focus.

Speaker: Jared Cooney Horvath I am a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, and I do not receive funding from big tech. A sobering fact our generation faces is that our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Every generation has outperformed their parents, and that is what we want: sharper kids. The reason for this largely has been school. Each generation spends more time in school, and we use school to develop our cognition until Gen Z. Gen Z is the first generation of modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory to literacy to numeracy to executive functioning to even general IQ, even though they go to more school than we did. So why? What happened around 2010 that decoupled schooling from cognitive development? It can't be school. Schools basically look the same. It can't be biology. This hasn't enough time to change. The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning. Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school, and that's across 80 countries. Bring it home to The US. Let's go to The US. We have our NAEP. That's our big data. Take any state. Here's a fun experiment you can try. Take any state NAEP data. Compare that to when that state adopted one to one technology widely, and watch what happens. The NAEP data will plateau and then start to drop. And, of course, this is all correlative. What we really want is causation. To get causation, what you need is academic research, and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing. Luckily, we have academic research stretching back to 1962 that shows the exact same story for sixty years. When tech enters education, learning goes down. In fact, because what do kids do on computers? They skim. So rather than determining what do we want our children to do and gearing education towards that, we are redefining education to better suit the tool. That's not progress. As we go through our discussion today, there will be a lot of talk about smartphones and social media, rightly so. But I’m the voice here to remind you that even in schools, it doesn't matter what the size of the screen is. If it's a phone, if it's a laptop, if it's desktop, and it doesn't matter who bought it. Is it school sanctioned? Does it have the word education stamped on it? It doesn't matter. All of these things are also gonna hurt learning, which in turn are gonna hurt our kids' cognitive development right at the time when we need our kids to be sharper than we are.