It really amazes me that you're doubling down on this absurd analogy. In addition to drinking you've thrown in tobacco and meth(!) as though they somehow compar

It really amazes me that you're doubling down on this absurd analogy. In addition to drinking you've thrown in tobacco and meth(!) as though they somehow compare to the rather vague and amorphous "dopamine addiction" caused by notifications on a computer. To bring all this back into context, Slack has a mute button. You can't mute the physically addictive qualities of drug addictions. This is a completely bizarre comparison. Equally absurd is your equating the tangible productivity benefits of group chat software (minimizing distractions through asynchronous communication) in an office culture to the oft-cited but scientifically questionable benefits of using drugs to be more creative. Even if you could prove that getting addicted to drugs makes you more creative through some sort of peer reviewed scientific study (is studying that in a controlled way even ethical?), I doubt anyone would argue that the tradeoffs were worth it because of the powerfully negative consequences of drug addictions. And, once again, the analogy is absurd because the productivity benefits of using group chat are clearly less ambiguous and the risk of "dopamine addiction" is entirely optional with judicious use of that mute button. And, frankly, as someone who knows multiple people struggling with drug addictions right now, I find the comparison offensive. No one's life will ever be destroyed by Slack the way I've seen people's lives being destroyed by alcohol and drugs.