First published brain study on porn users released today.

Discussion in 'Pornography Addiction' started by Gary Wilson, May 28, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Here's what is not being refuted guys - the steele/prause study did not find anything to refute the addiction model. Nothing except higher EEG readings when viewing porn - which supports the addiction model. REFUTE THAT.

    She is still posting as if the steele/prause study actually showed something. It didn't.

    PS- Even in the steele/prause study had shown something - it wouldn't be legit. Why? because they had males, females and non-heterosexuals all watch the same images.
     
  2. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Yes it is. You cannot refute what I just posted. You cannot address the content of my analysis of the steele/parause study. http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013

    The "random Psychologist" is a senior professor who's job it is to review study methodology. He's one of the top in his field. Both he & I made a simple statement that the only finding was higher EEG readings for sexual images. And that finding is exactly what researchers find when they expose addicts to addictions cues.

    This is the 3rd time I have said it. Refute it please. Or ignore it and resort to weak attempts at ad hominen to distract from the truths about the Prause study.
     
  3. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    7 non-heterosexuals is what the steele study said. Refute that. And both males and females. And Prause stated that some subjects had severe porn problems and other had little problems

    So are you suggesting males, females, addicts, non-addicts, and non heterosexuals, will all have the same response to the same vanilla hetero porn? Is that what you are suggesting? everyone on this forum knows that is crazy.

    This shows that Prause has no idea how to design a study. Actual addiction researchers know that you try to match age, genders, and handedness - at the very least. And that's just for cocaine addiction. If one is assessing attentional reponse (EEG) to porn you better make sure that all subjects are the same sex, the same orientation, and are the same level of addiction.

    For the 4th time - the only Prause finding was higher EEG readings for porn - and that supports the addiction model. refute that.

    And while you are it

    1) Explain why Prause lied about Voon's study on her lab's website?

    2) Address all the points I made about the differences between the Prause study and the German study. Heck address any points I've made in this thread.

    3) Finally, refute all the points I made about the Prause stdudy you are hyping. See - http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013

    4) Not finally. While we are at it - could you please take on this analysis of the Ley & Prause Article - “The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ model‘”

    This analysis of the above paper by David Ley & Nicole Prause clearly demonstrates that Prause once again misrepresented studies, misused citations, omitted all contradictory evidence, and used citations that had nothing to do with the text. See - The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review whttp://www.yourbrainonporn.com/emperor-has-no-clothes-fractured-fairytale-posing-review

    This last one really shows us who Prause is. She teamed up with the author of the Myth of sex addiction, David Ley, to produce a shoddy, biased, joke of a review, just to make headlines. This is not science. This is pure agenda. This is the work of a zealot who will create several user names and spend her valuable time posting on porn recovery sites.
     
  4. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    males. females, 7 non-hetroesuals. Some had severe problems, some did not. Refute that sentence.

    How telling is it that you hang on to one single, already refuted point, while your entire study has been completely eviscerated by my analysis and Hilton's analysis.

    http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013

    http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589

    But didn't you come on here to say that the New German study agrees with your study? You need to go back to my list and do a little explaining.

    No one has mentioned the stimuli as being a problem. Nice try at creating a straw men. Kuhn used all heterosexual males. Try that next time when you do a study.

    PS - didn't you know that the only prupose of your stdudy was to correlate questionaires with P300 redaings?

    Oh by the way, for the 5th time, the Prause study found higher EEG readings for porn, which is the only thing it found, and that is what one would expect for addiction.

    You both found evidence for addiction. Refute that...or go to sleep.
     
  5. Universal

    Universal Guest

    The correct spelling is "source"

    Universal: 1
    toiuf: 0

    Checkmate
     
  6. lookingahead

    lookingahead To restore my inmost being. Staff Member

    Why are you (whoever you are) creating multiple accounts for the same argument? You are fooling no one.
     
  7. gameover

    gameover Age: 26

    With what motive?
     
  8. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    @ toiuf
    There is? Just because this was not a longitudinal study does not mean that porn couldn't have caused those brain changes. The authors hinted at the possibility in the conclusion, but appropriately said they cannot be sure because it was correlative and did not show causation.

    They scanned the brains of porn users, and found weaker dopamine signaling in the reward circuit, and a weaker connection between the striatum and prefrontal cortex, it is that simple.

    Those are both well known brain changes in addictions. Again, it did not show proof of causation, but that in NO way goes against what we believe on this forum. That porn has the ability to re-wire and numb the brains reward circuit. Show me where in the study it suggested that porn does not lead to these changes with your handy dandy cited qoutes.

    Show me where he said "It's addiction".... Go back to the first post. He used the words .. "desensitization perhaps"... and "this may indicate hypofrontality"... Stop spinning what he said. He is actually being the honest one here. He reported what the study found.

    No. That is called "taking time out of his day to report what a study found, in order to help others." No junk was pulled. Again, he rightly used the words "perhaps" and "this may."

    Again, no proof of causation EITHER way. However, we have thousands of anecdotes where guys report depression and ALL other addiction like symptoms going away when removing porn. Many guys, including myself, were very happy until our dicks stopped working. We gave up porn and our dicks started working.

    You said-
    HUH?? You realize you just essentially said - all in one sentence might I add - "guys all over this forum are trying to simply give up porn but can't... that looks nothing like addiction to me and many scientists"

    LOL... care to expound on how not being able to give up something a guy should EASILY be able to go without, looks "nothing like addiction"?

    What if I told you guys with porn-induced ED cannot masturbate without porn? What if I told you thousands of guys with porn-induced ED gave up porn and now can masturbate without porn and have successful sex with a real person?

    Trying to be abstinent and failing would be evidence for addiction by definition.

    Are you suggesting that giving up porn for a period of time could make things worse for a young healthy guy? He can always masturbate without porn if he wants. We are only concerned with sexually conditioning our brains to porn. If a guy is dependent on porn to stay sane or to be able to masturbate, that is a huge problem wouldn't you agree? I don't know.. might even indicate addiction?

    Like Steel et al hid the fact that they found evidence for porn addiction? Or like David Leys review hid the Cambridge study that was in the press but included others, and hid the 60+ internet addiction brain studies that all show addiction related brain changes found in substance addictions? Just doesn't seem right does it?

    Rebooters almost unanimously report improvements after giving up porn for a few months. Again, suggesting going without porn could make things worse does not make any sense. One can masturbate if he wants to, going without porn should be easy breezy, and so should masturbating without porn for a teenager.

    Now this I was unaware of! Please cite the science that shows porn use does not cause addiction related brain change. I am open to discussion and I hope you can answer my many questions.
     
  9. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    You also seem confused about your own stdudy. It had only one purpose: to see if there were ant relationships between questionnaires and P300 readings. UNLIKE THE KHUN STUDY YOU WEREN'T EXAMINING THE BRAIN FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES OR EVEN ADDICTION.

    Your study had no findings, There were no relation between questionnaire scores and EEG readings. Nada. Instead you found higher readings for porn images and misrepresented these findings with the following statements -

    Prause: "The reason these findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction."

    This is a lie as exposed in Hilton's Peer-reviewed paper below

    Others have described significant limitations of this study. For instance, author Nicole Prause stated in an interview, ‘Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction’. John Johnson has pointed out several critical issues with this use of the Dunning et al. (2011) paper she cites as a basis for comparison with the Steele et al. paper. First, the Dunning et al. paper used three controls: abstinent cocaine users, current users, and drug naïve controls. The Steele et al. paper had no control group of any kind. Second, the Dunning et al. paper measured several different ERPs in the brain, including early posterior negativity (EPN), thought to reflect early selective attention, and late positive potential (LPP), thought to reflect further processing of motivationally significant material. Furthermore, the Dunning study distinguished the early and late components of the LPP, thought to reflect sustained processing. Moreover, the Dunning et al. paper distinguished between these different ERPs in abstinent, currently using, and healthy control groups. The Steele et al. paper, however, looked only at one ERP, the p300, which Dunning compared to the early window of the LLP. The Steele et al. authors even acknowledged this critical flaw in design: ‘Another possibility is that the p300 is not the best place to identify relationships with sexually motivating stimuli. The slightly later LPP appears more strongly linked to motivation’.

    Steel et al. admit that they are in fact not able to compare their results to the Dunning et al. study, yet their conclusions effectively make such a comparison. Regarding the Steele et al. study, Johnson summarized, ‘The single statistically significant finding says nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a negative correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner (r=−0.33), indicating that P300 amplitude is related to lower sexual desire; this directly contradicts the interpretation of P300 as high desire. There are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no comparisons to control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers are a quantum leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people who report trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do not have brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of addicts’ (personal communication, John A. Johnson, PhD, 2013).


    Bottom line is that this entire thread of you attempting to compare your study to he German fMRI study is built on lies and deceptions. Your study did not show a damn thing. It certainly didn't refute porn addiction.

    Instead of trolling recovery forums trying to convince yourself that your studies have meaning, why not spend this valuable time openly refuting Hilton's and my analysis?

    It's been almost one year and you have yet to take on the substance of our scathing analysis of your study. The reason is obvious - you cannot. Your only tactic is drive by trolling, and weak ad hominen. Is that any way for a "real scientist" to act?
     
  10. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Nope it's you who are lying - FROM THE PRAUSE STUDY

    Math: 52 - 45 = 7. That means 7 non-heterosexuals. That is exactly what I said in my analysis. The above is the ONLY description in the Prause study. Nowhere in the study did it say they were bisexual.

    FROM FROM MY ANALYSIS


    Why no correlations between questionnaires and EEG readings?

    Prause's second argument is that the lack of correlations between subjects EEG readings and 3 other questionnaires means porn addiction doesn't exist. Two major reasons account for the lack of correlation:

    1) The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men, heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard, possibly uninteresting, male+female porn.

    2) The Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS) isn't a test of Internet-porn use or porn addiction. In the press, Prause repeatedly pointed to the lack of correlation between EEG scores and sexual compulsivity scales.

    Unacceptable diversity of test subjects: The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men, heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard, possibly uninteresting, male+female porn. Standard procedure for addiction studies is to select homogeneous subjects in terms of age, gender and orientation (plus a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by such differences.

    An experiment assessing cue-induced reactivity for cocaine might get by with a heterogeneous group males, females and gays, but not a study measuring arousal to porn. This alone explains the lack of correlations. See, for example, Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica.

    Can we be confident that a non-heterosexual has the same enthusiasm for male-female porn as a heterosexual male, or might his/her inclusion distort EEG averages rendering meaningful correlations unlikely? See, for example, Neural circuits of disgust induced by sexual stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual men: an fMRI study.

    Surprisingly, Prause herself stated in an earlier study (2012) that individuals vary tremendously in their response to sexual images:

    Film stimuli are vulnerable to individual differences in attention to different components of the stimuli (Rupp & Wallen, 2007), preference for specific content (Janssen, Goodrich, Petrocelli, & Bancroft, 2009) or clinical histories making portions of the stimuli aversive (Wouda et al.,1998).

    Still, individuals will vary tremendously in the visual cues that signal sexual arousal to them (Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, & McBride, 2004).

    In a Prause study published a few weeks before this one she said:

    Many studies using the popular International Affective Picture System (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999) use different stimuli for the men and women in their sample.

    Maybe Prause should read her own statements to discover the reason why her current EEG readings varied so much. Individual differences are normal, and large variations are to be expected with a sexually diverse group of subjects.
    -----------------------

    No that we have settled that you are lying, try answering for the 6th time why Prause lied about her findings? Why mislead the public that the EEG readings were not like other addicts? Why mislead the public about the correlations with the sexual desire inventory?

    Then tell us all about how the Kuhn study is just like the Prause study.
     
  11. Universal

    Universal Guest

    You're so incredibly stupid to assume we don't know "toiuf" and " TrickyPaladin" have the same author. It's honestly painful to watch this all play out. It genuinely makes me inclined to be unwilling to even consider anything you're discussing because you're being so foolish, assuming no one will realise. It makes you appear as if you have some hidden agenda or mental retardation making ghost accounts to back yourself up.

    I'm as high as a kite and I can pick it up lmao put some effort in you bellend, or not, I'm having a good laugh.
     
  12. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    @ TrickyPaladin
    So Prause found evidence of porn addiction... and you claim "victory"... victory of what?

    In Gary's original review he said "7 non heterosexuals"

    I just looked at the link "toiuf" provided here

    And it says: number of participants = 52

    sexual identity:

    45 heterosexuals
    5 bisexuals
    1 homosexual
    1 undicided

    So... they can put what ever little * they want but if participants are identifying as homosexual, bi, and undecided.. that is showing non heterosexual participants straight porn. Wilson did not lie... he pointed out that that is poor methodology for a study like this, which is true, and that there were 7 non heterosexuals who were shown the same porn as the 45 heterosexuals, which is true.

    Prause said her study found no evidence of porn addiction... which was not true. Riddle me that?

    And also... everyone on this forum needs to go back and read my last post, and we can wait together for any of these 3 new users to respond to my questions.
     
  13. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    That's what you had in your study nikky. & non- heterosexuals. That's all you had. And that is exactly what I said in my analysis.

    You should read what you actually said in other studies - that men and women respnd differently. How dodyou think non heterosexuals respond?

    We are back to the fact that your entire study is complete BS. You lied about how the EEG readings were not like other addicts. Your study supports the addiction model and you have not refuted that in 3 pages of comments.
     
  14. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    Again... there was a homosexual in Steele et al.

    Were there or were there not 7 participants who "identified" as something other than heterosexual, including one who "identified" as homosexual? That is a yes or no question.
     
  15. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    Hey nikky - it's your study. If you mean bisexual then say it your study. The quote is accurate and now you are saying they were bisexual. Backtracking one year later - that's our Nikky.

    Now back to your two lies

    1) address your lies about the EEG readings FOR THE 7TH TIME - THIS COMPLETELY REFUTES EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR STUDY. I'll help you out.

    Actually, P300 readings were higher for porn images than for neutral images, which is exactly what would be expected for someone with an addiction. Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Prause, Psychologist John A. Johnson said:

    "My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts' brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be do to her preconceptions--what she expected to find."

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448

    =====================

    1) address the lie about correlations between SDI and P300. When you used the entire SDI - you had no correlation. Nothing. REFUTE THAT

    You had to exclude the masturbation questions to get a negative correlation t But you still wrote up your title as if you HAD used the ENTIRE SDI.

    According to one of its developers, Ilana Spector, the SDI is intended to be administered as a single unit:

    "The scale was only validated using ALL the items both solitary and dyadic.... The scale was not designed to be used [as it was here] nor was it validated that way."

    The SDI is an "all or none" measuring tool for "sexual desire," not "half."

    What crazy is that you didn't even know what the SDI consisted of..
    Quoting the study:

    In fact, the Sexual Desire Inventory contains nine partnered questions, four solitary questions, and one question that cannot be categorized (#14).

    Second mistake: Table 2 says the Solitary test score range is "3-26," and yet the female mean exceeds it. It's 26.46--literally off the charts. What happened? The four solitary sex questions (10-13) add up to a possible score of "31".

    My god Prause you argue about the SDI and you don't know want it is, how many questions measure what. Your study is a complete mess.
    -----------

    You HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ONE POINT MADE IN HILTONS OR MY ANALYSIS. Not one. The following are documented an irrefutable

    1) You used 7 non hetrosexuals, males, females, addicts and non addicts. The Kuhn stdudy didn't do that. Valerie Voon didn't

    2) You lied about the SDI - when all 14 questions were calculated YOU had n NO CORRELATION.

    3) You lied about the P300 readings being different that other addictions

    4) And most important for the 8th time I have said that your study ACTUALLY SHOWS ADDICTION - BECAUSE USERS HAD HIGHER P300 READINGS FOR PORN. You lied about that.

    A string of lies. That's why you hide behind several user names and refuse to publish a reply to Dr, Hilton.

    This whole thread is so revealing, that you, Nicole Prause would create 4-5 user names and just go ape shit on YBR - on the day that a new study arrived showing strong evidence of porn addiction.

    What is the psychology behind a sex researcher trolling a porn recovery forum, making up BS? What type of PhD researcher would do that? What type of person would do that?
     
  16. Universal

    Universal Guest

    "Back" is not interchangeable with "log into my other account" lol
     
  17. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    @ TrickyPaladin
    What has he been lying about for years? Like I said in my first post on this thread... that no one will address the content of, show me evidence that porn does not cause addiction related brain changes?

    There are 60+ internet addiction studies that show the same brain changes that are found in substance addictions, some including porn use. The only brain studies done on porn users, all 3, showed evidence that porn may cause brain changes or be addictive. Cite to all the evidence that goes against the latest addiction neuroscience that shows behaviors can be real addictions.

    Tell the ASAM that behaviors can't be addictions... and the DSM while your at it (gambling)

    We are not "idiots" we are a community of people who were negatively impacted by porn, gave it up and saw improvements in our lives.

    Some of us had limp penises and followed what Gary suggested and give up porn and see what happens and our penises now respond to our loved ones.

    Argue with this long list of primarily experts who acknowledge porn can indeed cause sexual dysfunctions - http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/porn-induced-ed-media

    Stop pretending like this is a "debate" because all evidence is on one side at the moment... unless you can cite otherwise?

    Stop pretending like you have "victory" when the study you guys are defending found evidence for porn addiction and the public claim was the opposite.

    Now go back to my first comment in this thread and address my questions please. Stop calling people names and actually participate in a intellectual conversation by addressing my questions in my first post.
     
  18. Gary Wilson

    Gary Wilson Active Member

    No one said it wasn't.

    I'll say it gain - when all 14 questions were calculated you had NO RELATION, NO CORRELATION. This is the spin your been trying for sometime now. The SDI is only validated as a measure of sexual desire when all 14 questions are used - fact.

    You got your headlines by not including the masturbation questions The name of your stdudy is not Dyadic sexual desire is negatively correlated....
    It was - Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images,

    To get a correlation you used the questions that did not involve masturbation.

    I'll say it again - when the entire SDI was calculated no correlation and no headlines, and no title to a study. You had nothing - and thats why you don't take us on directly because you know exactly what you did.
     
  19. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    @ TrickyPaladin
    Yup, the Dr. Oz SHOW that had a Urologist, Andrew Kramer, and a psychiatrist, Sue Varma on who shared that porn-induced ED exists.

    Next on the list? I'd love to keep going.
     
  20. GABE

    GABE Porn gave me a limp noodle

    @ TrickyPaladin
    What are you talking about? Stay on topic. You do realize the Urologists on that long list (many) find no problems with their patients dicks, suggest they give up porn, and see their erectile dysfunction go away?

    I said take a look at the list of peeps that acknowledge porn causes dysfunctions. It was for your viewing pleasure so you could see we are not a community of conspiracy theorists without any support from people who know a lot about dicks. I said nothing about their ability to do research or ability to evaluate studies.

    Answer my questions in my first post or provide this forum with evidence that porn viewing does not have the ability to re-wire or numb the brain.

    Looking forward to it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page