this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
304 points (94.7% liked)
Technology
59329 readers
6373 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fair enough. Personally I think it's hard to study because of how ubiquitous it is. There isn't really a control group that is representative of the general population. I do think it's physiologically addictive (just like everything else that is enjoyable or gives a dopamine reward), which could mean some will spend more time with it than they should. But for the rest, it's hard to say if behaviours and attitudes come from the porn or if they are in porn because that's just how some people approach sex.
And from a personal perspective, there's been plenty of times while watching porn that I've thought, "ok, this might be hot but holy fuck that guy is a piece of shit". Which I think indicates that there is some bad porn out there but also indicates I'm not some brainless drone that thinks, "I'm seeing this in a video, therefore it is good".
Ubiquitous things are the easiest to study. Unless you think there's a lack of a control group?
Doing a napkin-level study on this comment thread I think we can conclude that believing that viewing porn is somehow dangerous is a very unpopular opinion that isn't widely backed by evidence. Therefore, it is healthier to rub those anti-porn thoughts out and/or get some hard science pounded into you.
Yeah, I did mean the lack of a representative control group. And I never said I was anti-porn, I just don't outright reject the idea that there might be harmful aspects to it but don't think we'll be able to determine that one way or another due to the lack of representative controls. The people who think masturbating makes Jesus cry or some dumb shit like that aren't representative.
Pretty sure some universities have tried to do studies but, just like you said, they couldn't find enough people for the "does not watch porn" control group.
You could just say you don't know what "addictive" means
There's chemical addiction and there psychological addiction. Both involve a strong desire to do something that doesn't benefit or even hurts you. Gambling addiction is a psychological addiction.
I'd even go so far as to say that most chemical addictions start as psychological addictions because withdrawal won't be that bad after the first time, but you want more because it feels good because most affect the dopamine pathway, some acting as dopamine itself (like cocaine), some increasing your sensitivity to it (don't know of any that do this but theoretically it would result in the same), and some encouraging your body to release it more readily (like meth).
Though porn and sex addiction (and heroin) might work on a different pathway, as I'm not sure if the orgasm hormone is dopamine or something else, though I do think that dopamine is involved in getting people engaged with sex before the orgasm. From some quick reading, it sounds like dopamine is involved.
Tldr: no, u
Buddy I'm not reading your half-understood bullshit when you think anything that gives you dopamine is addictive.
Watch out for those pleasant sunny days. They're addictive. Laugher of children? Addictive.
Maybe actually meet a few addicts and learn a bit about actual addictions.
Then what do you think drives gambling addiction?
Lots of things. The problem with pseudo-scientific takes, in general, is that they steal from science but don't actually contribute anything to it. You're essentially making the same argument as, "it snowed in winter so climate change isn't real."
Addiction is a well-defined term and every addiction has more than one root cause.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/
Chose a layman site to help you get it more easily
And what do you think that reward circuitry is based on?
And if it's the people rather than the things that cause addiction, shouldn't nothing be called addictive then? Or everything addictive having a footnote of "to certain people". Which should be obvious because there's different levels of addiction from not at all to sucks dick in an alley to get a fix.
Now you're starting to begin to understand why psychologists are professionals and you are not.
Right or wrong, you argue like an asshole. Since you tried to dodge that question where you might have to admit I'm not wrong and this whole thing was more of a miscommunication (you assumed when I said "addictive" I meant everyone would be affected by that addiction or maybe you do think addiction isn't related to dopamine?), then a disagreement, the reward circuitry is based on dopamine.
You can think I'm an asshole all you'd like, but at least you learned more about addiction today
Can't say I got anything out of this conversation, other than seeing that I might need to add disclaimers to my original statement. Otherwise just passing some time.