Intellectuals Yet Idiots

The one thing that pisses me off more than any other thing is when I see these 'smart ass', sophisticated, ivy league, Phd idiots going on about how pornography doesn't cause 'addiction' / 'problems'. 

I am pretty active on twitter and I follow Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem and I feel most of you guys should also. In one thread they were pointing out the flawed research methodology that the 'pseudo scientist' peddler Josh Grubbs was doing about pornography research. In that twitter thread I saw plenty of Phd idiots who were backing this 'BS vendor', so I engaged with these IYI (Intellectuals Yet Idiots) to see if they understand the gravity of the problems.

In one direct message in twitter I sent to this ivy league woman (https://twitter.com/DrCristinaF) I told her how "Porn addiction is real, more specifically pics/screen addiction to hot women."  "Just by looking at ur hot sexy profile pic makes me want to fap..!" (Believe me back in the porn addiction days if I saw hot ivy league women I would do just that) She then blocks me and takes a screen shot and posts in on the BS vendor twitter post link here : https://twitter.com/JoshuaGrubbsPhD/status/1093925587440291840

Although it was a satirical troll message it got enough attention that these intellectual idiots did something about it. I also sent messages to other pseudo experts in relation to the post/research. Remember guys it's an uphill battle especially when these 'pseudo intellects' are merely mocking such a serious issue and problem that is facing young guys in society. Get engaged with these folks message, write, tweet, do whatever small things that you can do to get the message out because it is important. 

Psychologists aren't real scientists, they don't know anything. Real neurologists are increasingly becoming aware of porn addiction as a serious disorder.

I've read an article on a website that I don't even want to mention and I used to follow it. The guy or girl, I don't know who it was, scolded everybody that P was not an addiction. No shit. Then what about the research, what about the people that fit the problems shown in the research? We need to follow the people who are doing a good job with this (i.e Gary Wilson). Now we know that P is an addiction so we know how to close the pages that talk too much shit. If they think P is safe, then I encourage them to dive in it then see what they are gonna do about their fucking limp dick. I will become a drug dealer and sell them Viagra.

These same "objective" ivy league frat boys are the ones who shouted "No means yes!" in unison at Yale or some other rich boy school. The idea that doctorates are less personally motivated than others is a myth that dies hard.

AlexthenotsoGreat said:

These same "objective" ivy league frat boys are the ones who shouted "No means yes!" in unison at Yale or some other rich boy school. The idea that doctorates are less personally motivated than others is a myth that dies hard.

Click to expand...

They literally have no 'skin in the game' (n.taleb) unless they are willing to accept truth by understanding and talking to p.addicts they just can't figure this shit out.

Get engaged folks, on various social media, interact and call out their BS.

Finw? said:

Psychologists aren't real scientists, they don't know anything. Real neurologists are increasingly becoming aware of porn addiction as a serious disorder.

Click to expand...

Same goes for sexologists. They all operate on conjecture and don't care about the scientific literature.

Wow, loaded topic.

You can't just say porn doesn't cause the many reported sufferings from thousands of people's testimonials. Just because you have a PhD next to your name doesn't make you instantly informed on porn addiction. In some sense, you have had to live the suffering to understand or your making a guess from the outside. We know, they can't know - no matter how many stories we tell them. These PhD guys were extremely unlikely in the trenches fighting for a porn-free life or they couldn't say "porn addiction isn't real". After living through it, it's impossible to believe it is not real. This behavior on Twitter from the topic post shows that people tend to refute that which they do not understand. Look, all I can do is speak from my experience and I can't speak for every human being. Clearly, there has to be some objective science to go along with my experience or at least I need to realize that some people are more prone to this addiction than others. Who gets hurt in arguing if porn is addictive or not? The 15 year old kid who's a porn addict because as people are battling about the legit status of porn addiction, they aren't supporting the victims of the drug. It's hard for people to understand porn addiction, in my opinion, simply because porn use can be defined as moving in neural channels like the eyes or maybe ears and not the nose or mouth (like most "conventional drugs" today). So, observing someone using an elicit drug addictively is much easier for the current public to understand as an addiction than the method of using porn visually (I know this from being teased by several adults after a 12-step group that taunted me, by physically acting out, that porn use stemmed from my pelvis. Clearly, it is from the visual cortex or maybe the audio cortex, but the public constantly sees it as a sexual focus - hence the uphill struggle of getting it to be taken seriously and out of the dark webs of the net. These bullies obviously knew nothing about porn addiction as they smugly teased me). Just because it's hard to understand, doesn't make something wrong. I apologize if I stepped on anyone toes with this post, as the topic is very personal to me.

Wow, there is a lot to unpack here.  First of all, if a scientist says that such and such is not addictive, while ignoring all the cases in which this is in fact the case, they are not following the scientific method but merely "proving" their own cognitive bias correct.  That is poor science work, in fact I wouldn't even call it  science.

Secondly, yes psychology is mostly hogwash and I feel it has only gotten worse.  Psychologists base ideas on anecdotes and logical deduction, rather than on actual evidence.  I think that the old school definitely had some value.  While Jung's ideas definitely  are not scientific, he did come up with valuable ideas, that do explain some of what we see around us, and the ideas can definitely be tested scientifically.  I haven't  seen psychologists  published in Scientific American in some time.  If they are published in it, it is made known that the material is social science, and you don't see them included very often.  Scientific media has definitely left psychology in the  dust, hence self published blogs like Psychology Today.

Finally, I think everyone here is right, that these men and women are pushing social ideas, not science.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but you have  to be honest  about whether you are peddling fact or opinion.

HumbleRich said:

Wow, there is a lot to unpack here.  First of all, if a scientist says that such and such is not addictive, while ignoring all the cases in which this is in fact the case, they are not following the scientific method but merely "proving" their own cognitive bias correct.  That is poor science work, in fact I wouldn't even call it  science.

Secondly, yes psychology is mostly hogwash and I feel it has only gotten worse.  Psychologists base ideas on anecdotes and logical deduction, rather than on actual evidence.  I think that the old school definitely had some value.  While Jung's ideas definitely  are not scientific, he did come up with valuable ideas, that do explain some of what we see around us, and the ideas can definitely be tested scientifically.  I haven't  seen psychologists  published in Scientific American in some time.  If they are published in it, it is made known that the material is social science, and you don't see them included very often.  Scientific media has definitely left psychology in the  dust, hence self published blogs like Psychology Today.

Finally, I think everyone here is right, that these men and women are pushing social ideas, not science.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but you have  to be honest  about whether you are peddling fact or opinion.

Click to expand...

Psychology today is the website that has published an article saying that porn is not addictive and porn users are only people with high libido.

I hate when people forward the myth that porn isn't harmful or addictive. I've been an addict for 5 long, miserable years. Explain that one to me. I can personally attest to it, as can everyone else on this forum.

WoundedSparrow said:

I hate when people forward the myth that porn isn't harmful or addictive. I've been an addict for 5 long, miserable years. Explain that one to me. I can personally attest to it, as can everyone else on this forum.

Click to expand...

Because they are not P addicts. I would gladly ask them to start watching P for the next 10 years and let's see what they will do about their fucking limp dicks when they will try to fuck their ugly wives. I will be so happy to make a fortune selling Viagra. Of course, when you clearly know you are an addict, there is not a matter of "whether or not" anymore. Everyone here knows he is a P addict. This is why this forum has been created. And there is the research too but they say there is no research... I would not listen to everybody who calls himself "Ph.D".

Because they are not P addicts. I would gladly ask them to start watching P for the next 10 years and let's see what they will do about their fucking limp dicks when they will try to fuck their ugly wives. I will be so happy to make a fortune selling Viagra. Of course, when you clearly know you are an addict, there is not a matter of "whether or not" anymore. Everyone here knows he is a P addict. This is why this forum has been created. And there is the research too but they say there is no research... I would not listen to everybody who calls himself "Ph.D".

Click to expand...

The more I learn about psychologist the more I know they have no clue about reality of ''human nature'. It's like economists who have no clue about the 'real world' economy. Most of the Phd's especially women tend to stay single they mostly get off with porn.   

mcube said:

The more I learn about psychologist the more I know they have no clue about reality of ''human nature'. It's like economists who have no clue about the 'real world' economy. Most of the Phd's especially women tend to stay single they mostly get off with porn. 

Click to expand...

That's right. That's why I don't want to trust doctors because they are doctors. We need to trust who's worth it, first, and if they have no fucking clue, I don't need to believe their bullshit. How can you tell me I am not addicted to P when I can't stop? I've been fighting for 2 months and I literally can't stop jerking off to P. I am no doctor but one thing I know: If you can't quit something, despise hard attempts, it's an addiction. Maybe some of those doctors are P addicts in denial. It's like starting making fun of it because it's your problem too.

It's all semantics with those jokers. They base their opinions on strict word definitions and use those definitions to form the basis of an ill-informed argument.

Most of the deniers are working to the theory that addictions are chemical (external substances), whereas they describe behavioural addictions as not really addictions but compulsions. It's incredibly outmoded and most up to date addiction organisations have updated their ideas to include behavioural addiction side-by-side with chemical addictions. Sadly, there are a bunch of non-scientific Psychologists who are pedalling a different interpretation.

If you choose to define addiction as pertaining to external chemical substances, Johnny Psychologist might see that as a great launching pad for an argument to state that porn addiction is not really a thing, but more of a behavioural problem which can be examined and treated with the methods that Johnny Psychologist happens to use with all his patients and has believed in all his professional life. It's completely self-serving and self-promoting. It is a wilful decision to be narrow-minded about the issue as a way of promoting one's own career ambitions. Feathering one's own nest, if you will. Certainly not science.

The problem with some of those people is that they write articles on websites and people read them, like I read that article about P users being just people with high libido. If I hadn't been sure about P being an addiction, I would've sighted in relief and gone back to some jerking off and thinking that I have other problems and that my problems don't come from P.