3 ms·

Sure, it could be. Might not though. The probability is higher than almost any other type of content that can be viewed. You fail to mention this, comparing sim

Sure, it could be. Might not though. The probability is higher than almost any other type of content that can be viewed. You fail to mention this, comparing simulated rape and hardcore porn to swimming? The probabilities are not even on the same chart they are so far apart. Throw out psychology and statistics/polls and merely do a brain scan on the average person going to the beach/pool and the average person watching simulated rape or some hardcore porn. Only the latter creates a huge response in the brain and vivid memories for decades. This alone is evidence to any neurologist that porn has a high probability to create lasting effects in the brain and form brand new neural pathways which change the through process of the subject (usually permanently). My mention of "life before porn" was not meant to be an argument that port is bad. Some comments here treat port as such a healthy, natural and helpful thing. Lets take the last 100 years of western civilization. the first without porn, the second with. What did it improve? It is hard to argue that it has benefited society as a whole, but not so hard to make an argument that it has harmed it.

6d0debc071 13y ago
> Throw out psychology and statistics/polls and.... And you lose the ability to talk about probability in a meaningful way. If something does create an almost unprecedentedly large response in the brain, does that make it more likely to create lasting effects in the brain and cause the formation of new neural pathways? I don't know. You want to claim that it's highly probable but you've provided no evidence for this. I know that porn addicts brains are different, primarily in terms of the reward system in ways similar to other addictions I believe, but you'd expect that to be the case. And you've certainly not linked any probability of large responses to the probability of potential changes to the probability of any potential to harm. If you can't put numbers on it to compare it to other things, you really have no way to talk about probability that's not just waving your hands around and going 'Look at the brain scan!' Well, so what? Even assuming that all of your premises are true, (and the probability of concurrent events is the sum of their multiples so you've lost probability at every stage whatever the actual numbers would turn out to be; complexity penalty) and these brain scans actually exist, what does that mean? Is the probability of harm five times as likely as something else, twenty? If the initial chance of harm is quite small this doesn't make much difference. Is it three orders of magnitude out? Neurology is a complicated area of inquiry, unless you know how often a given change links up with some result, it's just a picture. You can't forget about psychology and stats and still meaningfully make statements like 'it's not even on the same chart' you have to know where both things are to be able to talk about that sort of thing - you have to have put the work in and have the numbers.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> Throw out psychology and statistics/polls and.... And you lose the ability to talk about probability in a meaningful way. If something does create an almost unprecedentedly large response in the brain, does that make it more likely to create lasting effects in the brain and cause the formation of new neural pathways? I don't know. You want to claim that it's highly probable but you've provided no evidence for this. I know that porn addicts brains are different, primarily in terms of the reward system in ways similar to other addictions I believe, but you'd expect that to be the case. And you've certainly not linked any probability of large responses to the probability of potential changes to the probability of any potential to harm. If you can't put numbers on it to compare it to other things, you really have no way to talk about probability that's not just waving your hands around and going 'Look at the brain scan!' Well, so what? Even assuming that all of your premises are true, (and the probability of concurrent events is the sum of their multiples so you've lost probability at every stage whatever the actual numbers would turn out to be; complexity penalty) and these brain scans actually exist, what does that mean? Is the probability of harm five times as likely as something else, twenty? If the initial chance of harm is quite small this doesn't make much difference. Is it three orders of magnitude out? Neurology is a complicated area of inquiry, unless you know how often a given change links up with some result, it's just a picture. You can't forget about psychology and stats and still meaningfully make statements like 'it's not even on the same chart' you have to know where both things are to be able to talk about that sort of thing - you have to have put the work in and have the numbers.