3 ms·

a related long read: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23121356-your-brain-on-porn https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23121356-your-brain-o... I thoug

a related long read: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23121356-your-brain-on-porn https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23121356-your-brain-o... I thought it was a decent book, seemed to cite a good number of sources, but I'm no scientician. But Gary makes a pretty rational argument -- If you're finding yourself in a certain situation[1], without a known underlying medical cause (as ruled out by a doctor), then cutting out porn never killed anyone, and anecdotally has cured many. So why not just give it a try? [1]: I'll keep it PG here, but the book is clear what this situation is

Saint_Genet 4y ago
Gary Wilson was a scientific fraud: https://medium.com/@nicole.prause/gary-wilson-was-a-known-science-fraud-f07cfab15b4a https://medium.com/@nicole.prause/gary-wilson-was-a-known-sc...
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Thank you for this, I was unaware. I will definitely be digging some more :)
kergonath 4y ago
I am yet to read a convincing study about these supposed detrimental effects of porn. All these texts start from the assumption that it is bad without anything like a root cause analysis. For example, yes, single people tend to watch more porn. But are they single because they watch porn (demonstrating that porn is a social inhibitor)? Or do they watch more porn because they are single (in which case porn is just a way to get some of the pleasure they would otherwise have with a partner)? Same for depression, which does not help going out and meet people. Should we then deduct that porn causes depression? Of course not, and yet this is the starting point of a lot of anti-porn rants. These arguments also fit too well with puritanical and repressive world views, which makes me very suspicious as motivated reasoning is pervasive in these discussions. > anecdotally has cured many That’s the thing, anecdotes are not data. I also have anecdotes of people who have a healthy life and watch porn regularly. Without an epidemiological study it does not mean much. From my experience, “watching porn never killed anyway, and anecdotally has cured many” is just as true as your assertion.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > anecdotes are not data. Actually anecdotes are data and they're one manner in which we find, for example, unexpected side effects of treatments https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/ . I say this not to specifically boost Gary's claims, but to encourage us to not wholesale discount anecdotes. They're too often clues to the right path to be ignored. I found the book to be pretty clear in it's wording saying essentially (to paraphrase) If you're not having any problems, then you don'd need a cure. But if you're experiencing these symptoms then here's what has worked for 100s, and by simple rationale there's no cost or danger to trying it (eliminating porn for a time). That's the part I found particularly compelling the simple deduction of "It might work, costs nothing, has no risk, so why not try it?"
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > I say this not to specifically boost Gary's claims, but to encourage us to not wholesale discount anecdotes. They're too often clues to the right path to be ignored. Right, but there are plenty of plainly stupid ones (“my kid is autistic and, surprise, surprise, had a vaccine weeks before being diagnosed”), and there are plenty of conflicting ones (like on the current subject, but also on things like CBD, though the picture is getting clearer on that front). They are also unverifiable most of the time, and are commonly just made up. The only way of knowing whether the anecdotes are significant is to verify them and do some statistical analysis, at which point they are data that we can analyse quantitatively or qualitatively, and not anecdotes anymore. “Trust my anecdotes” is an argument one makes when reality is inconsistent with one’s position. > I found the book to be pretty clear in it's wording saying essentially (to paraphrase) If you're not having any problems, then you don'd need a cure. Which does sound reasonable. But that was not the OP’s message, which was based on the same book. There is no reason to assume that stoping watching porn will help with anything. It’s like homeopathy: sure, trying costs nothing, but it’s still stupid and can occasionally backfire. Again, watching porn also never killed anyone, costs nothing and has no risk. So why not simply say “do whatever you want to do” and consider those anti-porn arguments for what they are: pseudo-science?

Saint_Genet 4y ago

Gary Wilson was a scientific fraud: https://medium.com/@nicole.prause/gary-wilson-was-a-known-science-fraud-f07cfab15b4a https://medium.com/@nicole.prause/gary-wilson-was-a-known-sc...

maerF0x0 4y ago
Thank you for this, I was unaware. I will definitely be digging some more :)

kergonath 4y ago

I am yet to read a convincing study about these supposed detrimental effects of porn. All these texts start from the assumption that it is bad without anything like a root cause analysis. For example, yes, single people tend to watch more porn. But are they single because they watch porn (demonstrating that porn is a social inhibitor)? Or do they watch more porn because they are single (in which case porn is just a way to get some of the pleasure they would otherwise have with a partner)? Same for depression, which does not help going out and meet people. Should we then deduct that porn causes depression? Of course not, and yet this is the starting point of a lot of anti-porn rants. These arguments also fit too well with puritanical and repressive world views, which makes me very suspicious as motivated reasoning is pervasive in these discussions. > anecdotally has cured many That’s the thing, anecdotes are not data. I also have anecdotes of people who have a healthy life and watch porn regularly. Without an epidemiological study it does not mean much. From my experience, “watching porn never killed anyway, and anecdotally has cured many” is just as true as your assertion.

maerF0x0 4y ago
> anecdotes are not data. Actually anecdotes are data and they're one manner in which we find, for example, unexpected side effects of treatments https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/ . I say this not to specifically boost Gary's claims, but to encourage us to not wholesale discount anecdotes. They're too often clues to the right path to be ignored. I found the book to be pretty clear in it's wording saying essentially (to paraphrase) If you're not having any problems, then you don'd need a cure. But if you're experiencing these symptoms then here's what has worked for 100s, and by simple rationale there's no cost or danger to trying it (eliminating porn for a time). That's the part I found particularly compelling the simple deduction of "It might work, costs nothing, has no risk, so why not try it?"
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I say this not to specifically boost Gary's claims, but to encourage us to not wholesale discount anecdotes. They're too often clues to the right path to be ignored. Right, but there are plenty of plainly stupid ones (“my kid is autistic and, surprise, surprise, had a vaccine weeks before being diagnosed”), and there are plenty of conflicting ones (like on the current subject, but also on things like CBD, though the picture is getting clearer on that front). They are also unverifiable most of the time, and are commonly just made up. The only way of knowing whether the anecdotes are significant is to verify them and do some statistical analysis, at which point they are data that we can analyse quantitatively or qualitatively, and not anecdotes anymore. “Trust my anecdotes” is an argument one makes when reality is inconsistent with one’s position. > I found the book to be pretty clear in it's wording saying essentially (to paraphrase) If you're not having any problems, then you don'd need a cure. Which does sound reasonable. But that was not the OP’s message, which was based on the same book. There is no reason to assume that stoping watching porn will help with anything. It’s like homeopathy: sure, trying costs nothing, but it’s still stupid and can occasionally backfire. Again, watching porn also never killed anyone, costs nothing and has no risk. So why not simply say “do whatever you want to do” and consider those anti-porn arguments for what they are: pseudo-science?