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

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-...