Aprilgold said:
Ah, I fell asleep. sorry. Okay, this is it and then I'm done. I don't have time for this particular conversation anymore.
Okay, I think it's hilarious that a good part of your post was nothing but conjecture, yet you're whining that I should be bringing sources. Now, I'd like to see frequent porn users (sepcifically those who claim it's a problem) actually go 90 days without porn and say "eh, piece of cake". Hell, I'd just like to see them cut way the fuck back for an extended period of time and see how that goes. They certainly don't NEED that porn. Secondly, where did you say gambling COULD be an addiction again? I'm not even denying that you did, I just don't recall seeing that.
Now, having done a bit of reading on the topic, internet addiction disorder (IAD) is becoming a commonly accepted term, so I'm beginning to question the entire premise of your ranting (as least in this specific case), as its usage seems to be less black and white than one might imply. Secondly, internet "compulsion" would not manifest the same way as a "book compulsion". This appears to be due to the mechanism through which the information is relayed. It seems the rapid fire flow of different kinds of information (visual/aural), dependence on outside sources for information and constant subject changes, along with repeated hits from dopamine due to constant access to pleasurable, instantly gratifying material cause people to have issues with focusing and memory and depression.
Here's a couple of sources
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030253
I'll admit a control group of 16 and test of 17 is a bit small, but considering the fact that they showed overall abnormal readings suggests something is clearly up.
a good article about some of the potentially adverse effects of internet use, and one of the reasons I want to try this
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
He also wrote a book based on that article.
oh and this fun one.
http://www.forensicpsychology.net/internet-ruining-your-brain/
straightforward.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499141
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108989/?tool=pmcentrez
as to porn. To be frank. There is almost no solid neurological research on pornography compulsion/addiction. I mentioned that earlier, but good god I didn't realize how scant it was. I honestly just saw that article on google and posted it because I figured there would at least be some good studies. Nope. I'll admit I didn't read the whole article, and having read it it's really pretty shit. Nothing that actually concretely studies the potential neurological changes that could occur in the brain or the concrete ramifications of "porn addiction". Now the second article I think might have had some merit still.
I found these "studies" with some interesting tibdits throughout, but clearly no strict method of scientific investigation listed: http://salifeline.org/can-pornography-use-become-an-actual-brain-addiction/
(one has to question if a regular internet addict would show similar neural patterns as the pedophiles tested)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32712148/Pornography-and-Addiction-Brain-Chemistry-Research-and-Porn-by-Marnia-Robinson
(note the mention of withdrawal symptoms)
similarly, there's "the great porn experiment/your brain on porn". It seem to provide some basis for questioning habitual porn use for many men. I'm sure many people have heard of it and the claims it stakes, which echo the second article I just linked. It's all not scientifically verified but not debunked either.
Then we have this article
http://men.webmd.com/guide/is-pornography-addictive
which has people complaining about the same things you're complaining about in reference to a rather infamous senate hearing that keeps popping up throughout my research. Of course, we have psychologists contesting that it shares similarities to addiction as well. Note how the article seems to almost scream how horribly under-researched the topic is. Also, I'd guess that the progressive nature of pornography viewing, despite having "no evidence for it", would be attested to as a fairly common occurrence (especially in those who suffered from "porn addiction"). What the article does seem to verify, however, is that excessive porn use is an obvious PROBLEM in a lot of people's lives. Enough that they would seek treatment for it an feel it pathological in nature.
Then the senate hearing itself, which appears entirely biased, and thus I suppose should be taken with a large grain of salt. It's also based on old research (and wasn't sourced), so clearly it had trouble finding traction in the psychological community. Of course, with the utter lack of research, who knows if there's any real validity to these claims.
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/12/senate_subcommi.html
Honestly though, I can't find any good research denouncing the effects of pornographic compulsion/addiction either. I've found a large survey study saying porn wasn't negative based around a survey of Danish men and woman, but the results were based on self-perception in porn users so it's hardly definitive in any way (it also didn't zero in on those who claimed they had a pornographic addiction or problems with porn or say how long and how much they used it for in the abstract). Another study said that porn use didn't correlate with sexual crimes, but that's hardly what I'm taking issue with. When you also consider the lack of grants handed out for research as well as the inability to find any brain scan research of porn "addicts", it's not a simple black and white call to make. Honestly, for this one I'm just going to go off of "people have claimed addiction (compulsion) to porn and clearly suffered from it". It seems to be a highly individualistic and subjective claim, but I feel am one of those people. Thus this little challenge.
Also, I just saw that vegetarian comment too. What does that have to do with anything? Why even bring up such a pointless example? Ultimately you seem to be just as guilty (if not more) than me of overestimating the value of your own opinion, which doesn't seem to be heavily research based.
What I don't get is you saying "you shouldn't have made this thread". Why? That's silly. I'm going to track my progress and see how this goes and tell others. Do you just want me to not tell people? Why do you care? It's not your problem. If you don't like the idea of it then ignore it.