3 ms·

Sounds like you haven't read it, or bothered to look at the studies referenced within. There's plenty of research and studies showing its effect on brain matter

Sounds like you haven't read it, or bothered to look at the studies referenced within. There's plenty of research and studies showing its effect on brain matter and rewiring of the brain structure. It's akin to substance abuse. Feel free to explain to me how all of these studies are wrong.

npteljes 5y ago
Toxic people can reference valid studies and make valid points. That doesn't make them non-toxic, and neither does it invalidate the studies.
- zthrowaway 5y ago
  I'm not sure how this book is toxic, or the people involved in authoring it. Any snippets of the material within that you think is toxic? Could we also define toxic in this context?
manuelabeledo 5y ago
True, I haven’t read the book. I have been following the controversy, though. My gripe revolves around the fact that the author has no relevant training in the matter, but signed a highly controversial paper along with an ophthalmologist [1]. This paper was then used as the basis for both his book and his TEDx talks. Now, I’m not going to pretend that I am a psychologist myself, but for several years I authored a blog that analysed pseudoscience and cult beliefs, and the whole website and the associated Reward Foundation reek of pseudoscience cliche: * They frequently rely on self references, i.e. support their conclusions using their own prior work. * Misrepresent scientific consensus, e.g alleged that “porn addiction” is part of the DSM-5. * Any criticism on their work has been ignored, or blamed on personal vendettas or disinformation campaigns (see their opinions on Nicole Prause). Frankly, to me this looks like just another China Study. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-...
- spiralx 5y ago
  > My gripe revolves around the fact that the author has no relevant training in the matter, but signed a highly controversial paper along with an ophthalmologist. Rand Paul? :)

npteljes 5y ago

Toxic people can reference valid studies and make valid points. That doesn't make them non-toxic, and neither does it invalidate the studies.

zthrowaway 5y ago
I'm not sure how this book is toxic, or the people involved in authoring it. Any snippets of the material within that you think is toxic? Could we also define toxic in this context?

manuelabeledo 5y ago

True, I haven’t read the book. I have been following the controversy, though. My gripe revolves around the fact that the author has no relevant training in the matter, but signed a highly controversial paper along with an ophthalmologist [1]. This paper was then used as the basis for both his book and his TEDx talks. Now, I’m not going to pretend that I am a psychologist myself, but for several years I authored a blog that analysed pseudoscience and cult beliefs, and the whole website and the associated Reward Foundation reek of pseudoscience cliche: * They frequently rely on self references, i.e. support their conclusions using their own prior work. * Misrepresent scientific consensus, e.g alleged that “porn addiction” is part of the DSM-5. * Any criticism on their work has been ignored, or blamed on personal vendettas or disinformation campaigns (see their opinions on Nicole Prause). Frankly, to me this looks like just another China Study. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-...

spiralx 5y ago
> My gripe revolves around the fact that the author has no relevant training in the matter, but signed a highly controversial paper along with an ophthalmologist. Rand Paul? :)