"Dr. Eric Nestler, head of neuroscience research at Mount Cedar Sinai in New York and one of the most respected addiction scientists in the world, published a paper."
Alarm bells started ringing. Surely, we don't need to know that he's "the most respected". We need to know if his ideas are provably respectable....
And then, "In this paper he said that..."
That is almost certainly elliptical, with the real meaning being, "his paper couldn't conclusively prove or demonstrate this, but he said it, and he is "most respected", so he must be right."
But in spite of all those potential biases, the author treads mostly carefully, with good intentions and some apparent academic integrity so that the article is a compelling read. That said, the author is a bit high handed and sensationalist at times, drawing on Shakespeare and Lincoln for powerful poetic effect, which should surely be unnecessary if he hopes to sway us by power of reason and not emotion (or the lobe and not the limbic, to put it in his own words). But we can forgive him, I think, for climbing high on his soap box. He, after all, believes that we're at war.
Moreover, it does not treat the subject of sexual fantasies which would be argued to be dopamine inducing vivid experience.
It also does not address the notion of a correlation between pornography and reduced sex crimes.
What is the relevance of these two sentences?
Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death;
Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle;
Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness;
Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence;
Recovering the one worldview that actually works.
Published by The Fellowship of St. James (FSJ)
I think more research is neccessary before I believe viewing pornography is the only factor leading to addiction, or that viewing pornography will hurt society. I do believe though, that once somebody has a sex addiction, porn will be harmful to them and their addiction would be harmful to society.
"Dr. Norman Doidge ... describes how pornography causes re-wiring of the neural circuits. He notes that in a study of men viewing internet pornography, the men looked “uncannily” like rats pushing the lever to receive cocaine in the experimental Skinner boxes".
So if the subjects resemble rats to the observers, that proves it's the same as cocaine addiction?
He started off well, but the axe he brought to grind was too heavy for him to lift.
1. Yeah, it's true that there are some people who have addiction "issues" with porn to that point that it negatively affects their lives. Some people have obsessive/addictive reactions to lots of other things as well: alcohol and other drugs, gambling, food (I'm referring to eating disorders, not our need to eat to stay alive), WoW, etc.
2. For most addictive things, there develops an "industry" around them that thrives on sensationalizing and over-stating the problems caused. As one example, this article tries to create a link by association between declining birth rates and porn.
3. The rise of anti-<whatever> groups usually leads to calls for legislation, and such legislation quite often has nasty unintended consequences (cf Prohibition, the war on marijuana use, etc). Even if that article is partially accurate about the effect of porn on some people, the correct actions to take, if any, are probably not the obvious ones.