This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
@
DayTime99: Do explain why a
WP:PRIMARY study would be compliant with
WP:MEDRS. The source explicitly links delay discounting with bolstering the claim of porn addiction. So, it is a medical claim.
The whole article is a cesspool of
WP:MEDRS violations. Unreliable sources have been deleted, one from a publisher which made it to
Beall's List and another paper which has never passed through formal peer-review of any kind.
The linked material has nothing to do with porn addiction and is not a medical claim. It's a notable research observation on the general effects of porn use.
In regards to your claim about the "Christian right" - while some anti-porn groups might put out biased information, there are plenty of pro-porn groups who do as well. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and has many groups and advocates who defend it regardless of what its impacts may be. In any case, most of the sources critical of porn in the article are honest research and have nothing to do with politics.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Besides, you're not the author of that source, so you may not speak for them. The source is adamant that their claim about delay discounting supports the claim of porn addiction.
You lack evidence that some fantastical "Christian right" is behind all research that shows porn use can negative effects. Some of the biggest anti-porn advocates were and are atheists.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's just be clear on terms. There is a difference between pornography use having some negative effects (which even the sources you're citing state is "likely" the case), "pornography being a public health crisis", and porn addiction being a bonafide medically-classified addiction. By not equating all of these points, we can get to the best outcome.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
My take has been expressed at [1]. What I have learned since then? That a diagnosis of porn addiction is highly unlikely. Note that I am not opposed to a diagnosis of porn OCD, or CSBD.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the debate over how porn addiction should be classified stems from how the popular conception of the word "addiction" and the strict medical definition of "addiction" are different. For example, one definition of addiction in the Merriam Webster dictionary is "a strong inclination to do, use, or indulge in something repeatedly". Porn use, for many men, certainly meets this criteria. With this in mind, it's understandable why many people use the phrase "porn addiction" to denote a porn habit that's difficult to quit.
DayTime99 (
talk)
02:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a psychiatrist or psychotherapist angry, you should conflate between compulsion and addiction.
And my take is simply my own opinion, not medical orthodoxy. ICD-11 says there is CSBD, DSM-5-TR says there is no CSBD.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
09:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Are any of these articles any good: [3][4][5][6] ?
Love is from
MDPI, which is not a
WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher;
de Alarcón is not indexed for MEDLINE, which could be a red flag that it's not reliable, eventually it could be accepted, but I don't predict that accepting it would be easy (other editors may chime in);
Just noticed that de Alarcón was published by
MDPI. Well, that's not a
WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher, so that review carries no weight inside Wikipedia. And that pretty much explains why the DSM-5-TR team tossed it out of the pool with relevant research papers: inappropriate publisher. Everything that ever made it to
Beall's List is irrelevant to writing the DSM.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
10:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
In order to edit Wikipedia (well, except correcting spelling mistakes), you have to
WP:CITEWP:RS, in this case there are very stringent conditions, see
WP:MEDRS;
There is not much information about it, since universities are not allowed to perform experimental studies upon minors and porn;
The few empirical studies that do exist say: low correlation, and causality cannot be shown.
Conclusion: no, it isn't
science that pornography is bad for adolescents. While that might be religion, this is not an article in
theology.
While there are legal demands prohibiting showing pornography to minors, that is an
ethical prescription, not a fact of empirical sciences. And this article is not an article in law science, either. The legal prescription must be obeyed, because the Parliament expresses sovereignty over its state, but that does not make its claim an objective, proven scientific fact. You should not conflate scientific facts with ethical demands, yet both are entitled to respect. Law defines the ethics of science, it does not prescribe its facts. So, there are laws meant to protect minors from harm, but there is definitely no scientific evidence that watching porn is
harmful to minors. Also explained in the book
Not in Front of the Children. While these books are more than 20 years old, nothing has essentially changed which would invalidate their point.
Wiki Education assignment: ENGLI-1102-050 Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Penguinsrcool2023 (
article contribs).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
@
DayTime99: Do explain why a
WP:PRIMARY study would be compliant with
WP:MEDRS. The source explicitly links delay discounting with bolstering the claim of porn addiction. So, it is a medical claim.
The whole article is a cesspool of
WP:MEDRS violations. Unreliable sources have been deleted, one from a publisher which made it to
Beall's List and another paper which has never passed through formal peer-review of any kind.
The linked material has nothing to do with porn addiction and is not a medical claim. It's a notable research observation on the general effects of porn use.
In regards to your claim about the "Christian right" - while some anti-porn groups might put out biased information, there are plenty of pro-porn groups who do as well. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and has many groups and advocates who defend it regardless of what its impacts may be. In any case, most of the sources critical of porn in the article are honest research and have nothing to do with politics.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Besides, you're not the author of that source, so you may not speak for them. The source is adamant that their claim about delay discounting supports the claim of porn addiction.
You lack evidence that some fantastical "Christian right" is behind all research that shows porn use can negative effects. Some of the biggest anti-porn advocates were and are atheists.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's just be clear on terms. There is a difference between pornography use having some negative effects (which even the sources you're citing state is "likely" the case), "pornography being a public health crisis", and porn addiction being a bonafide medically-classified addiction. By not equating all of these points, we can get to the best outcome.
DayTime99 (
talk)
01:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
My take has been expressed at [1]. What I have learned since then? That a diagnosis of porn addiction is highly unlikely. Note that I am not opposed to a diagnosis of porn OCD, or CSBD.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the debate over how porn addiction should be classified stems from how the popular conception of the word "addiction" and the strict medical definition of "addiction" are different. For example, one definition of addiction in the Merriam Webster dictionary is "a strong inclination to do, use, or indulge in something repeatedly". Porn use, for many men, certainly meets this criteria. With this in mind, it's understandable why many people use the phrase "porn addiction" to denote a porn habit that's difficult to quit.
DayTime99 (
talk)
02:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a psychiatrist or psychotherapist angry, you should conflate between compulsion and addiction.
And my take is simply my own opinion, not medical orthodoxy. ICD-11 says there is CSBD, DSM-5-TR says there is no CSBD.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
09:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Are any of these articles any good: [3][4][5][6] ?
Love is from
MDPI, which is not a
WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher;
de Alarcón is not indexed for MEDLINE, which could be a red flag that it's not reliable, eventually it could be accepted, but I don't predict that accepting it would be easy (other editors may chime in);
Just noticed that de Alarcón was published by
MDPI. Well, that's not a
WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher, so that review carries no weight inside Wikipedia. And that pretty much explains why the DSM-5-TR team tossed it out of the pool with relevant research papers: inappropriate publisher. Everything that ever made it to
Beall's List is irrelevant to writing the DSM.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
10:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
In order to edit Wikipedia (well, except correcting spelling mistakes), you have to
WP:CITEWP:RS, in this case there are very stringent conditions, see
WP:MEDRS;
There is not much information about it, since universities are not allowed to perform experimental studies upon minors and porn;
The few empirical studies that do exist say: low correlation, and causality cannot be shown.
Conclusion: no, it isn't
science that pornography is bad for adolescents. While that might be religion, this is not an article in
theology.
While there are legal demands prohibiting showing pornography to minors, that is an
ethical prescription, not a fact of empirical sciences. And this article is not an article in law science, either. The legal prescription must be obeyed, because the Parliament expresses sovereignty over its state, but that does not make its claim an objective, proven scientific fact. You should not conflate scientific facts with ethical demands, yet both are entitled to respect. Law defines the ethics of science, it does not prescribe its facts. So, there are laws meant to protect minors from harm, but there is definitely no scientific evidence that watching porn is
harmful to minors. Also explained in the book
Not in Front of the Children. While these books are more than 20 years old, nothing has essentially changed which would invalidate their point.
Wiki Education assignment: ENGLI-1102-050 Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Penguinsrcool2023 (
article contribs).