Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Finds Porn Exposure Associated With Smaller Brain Region

Posted by timothy on Sunday June 1, 2014 @09:45AM from the news-for-nerds dept.

New submitter Bodhammer (559311) writes "German researchers looked at the brains of 64 men between the ages of 21 and 45 and found that one brain region (the striatum, linked to reward processing), was smaller in the brains of porn watchers, and that a specific part of the same region is also less activated when exposed to more pornography." While it's tempting to cast blame, "the study doesn't confirm whether watching porn causes the changes, or whether people with a certain brain type are inherently more apt to tune into X-rated content." The study's abstract is available; the paper itself is pay-walled.

211 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

At least spell it right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 09:49 · Score: 0

Pr0n
1. Re:At least spell it right by davester666 · 2014-06-01 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  The portion of the brain they are talking about is turned on by watching rom-com's.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
prost! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 09:54 · Score: 5, Funny

At last a study that concerns /.ers more than any of the other stuff to be found here lately.
1. Re:prost! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 13:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  At last a study that concerns /.ers ...
  What I want to know is where on Earth they found the control group?
2. Re:prost! by mwvdlee · 2014-06-01 19:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In other news, lying seems to be associated with a certain larger brain region.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
3. Re:prost! by BlackPignouf · 2014-06-01 22:00 · Score: 3
  
  +1
  That was exactly my thoughts.
  This smaller brain region could also be associated to "I don't care what you think" or "My sexual life is fine, porn and masturbation are a part of it".
4. Re:prost! by ruir · 2014-06-01 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dang, you posted it first. Rather obvious, isnt it?
5. Re:prost! by bjdevil66 · 2014-06-02 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're half-joking, but there are likely millions of other men out there in the US (including myself) alone that could say the same thing. Porn use (and in some cases addiction) is pervasive but hardly universal.
6. Re:prost! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  What I want to know is where on Earth they found the control group?
  I thought there was an earlier attempted study about porn where they literally could not find anybody who had not watched it.
Golf ball by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 09:54 · Score: 1

My brain must he the size if a golf ball then.
1. Re:Golf ball by TWX · 2014-06-01 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  No, just that particular region. Can a brain region be measured in negative area?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Golf ball by zlives · 2014-06-02 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  the curvature of space bending in on itself.... like they say, once you go black....hole!!
Do you give up higher cerebral function by rmdingler · 2014-06-01 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

in exchange for instant gratification of a primal nature?
Almost certainly.
Don't worry though, the reason you'll prosper if you live long is because aging gradually erodes the hold your base urges have upon you.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-01 10:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  in exchange for instant gratification of a primal nature?
  Almost certainly.
  Hahaha. But don't assume. OP left out something that is important to keep in mind here: most people in modern society watch pornography to some extent. They even admit to it in polls (which means the polls probably don't count everybody who really does).
  
  Putting 2 and 2 together, that means that the people with the larger brain region are the abnormal ones. You should be asking what THEY "give up" in exchange for this deviance (from the norm, that is).
2. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-01 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't assume it means anything—the striatum's primary function is coordinating motor control. If there is a meaningful causal link and this study is not just a p-value fishing expedition, it is so convoluted as to be incomprehensible.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-01 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It goes beyond that. Much of what we see day to day in technically non-porn magazines, billboards, TV commercials, signage in department stores, etc. would have been considered to be porn at various times in our history. Heck, when I was assigned to read, "The Scarlet Letter" in high school, it was immediately clear that it wasn't great writing. It was just 1800's porn.
  
  Porn is not really an easily defined term. Any study that wants to be taken seriously needs to be very explicit as to what they are defining as "porn".
4. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Porn is not really an easily defined term. Any study that wants to be taken seriously needs to be very explicit as to what they are defining as "porn".
  Yeah, I just love it when supposedly 'scientific' studies use subjective terminology and criteria as if they're objective and expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to take them seriously. You see that a lot in psychology.
5. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  But the striatum interacts with other brain structures such as the frontostriatal circuit, which does mediate behaviour.
6. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Log off Mr. Cruise, no one here is gonna buy it.
7. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Much more importantly, the study found correlation to *self reported porn watching*. Thus it's much more likely what they found was reverse correlation to willingness to lie, or any other number of social constructs.
8. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  in exchange for instant gratification of a primal nature?
  Instant gratification?
  Not at all. I spend a lot of time & effort searching for & downloading high-quality pr0n :)
9. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-01 13:38 · Score: 2
  
  Any study that wants to be taken seriously needs to be very explicit as to what they are defining as "porn".
  Well, Duh, porn ain't worth squat if it isn't explicit.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
10. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by LordLimecat · 2014-06-01 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, when I was assigned to read, "The Scarlet Letter" in high school, it was immediately clear that it wasn't great writing. It was just 1800's porn.
  
  Its good to know that you were such a fine literary critic as to dismiss one of the classic pieces of American literature in high school. Not everyone is certain of just how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is in high school.
11. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-01 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Much of what we see day to day in technically non-porn magazines, billboards, TV commercials, signage in department stores, etc. would have been considered to be porn at various times in our history.
  Ha! I knew it! Advertising causes smaller brains!
12. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-01 15:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Now that I've had a chance to sit down and read through both the study and a few other things... you're correct, but it's not completely clear-cut, at least in my opinion, that the changes under consideration actually relate to reward-seeking, addict-like behaviour and aren't simply, say, a lack of sexual development due to being single.
  They found a variety of different features in their test subjects (actual anatomical differences, differences in activity level within the caudate, differences in interconnectedness between pudamen and caudate...) and saw these were strongly correlated with level of pornography use, on the basis of addiction. However, there were some people in the study who used alcohol in a mildly problematic way. They showed only a r = ~0.25 (weak positive correlation) with porn usage. That strikes me as pretty inconsistent—if these are pathways strongly implicated in addictive behaviour, why didn't the drunks line up more neatly with their data? They don't mention alcoholism again in the discussion, except to draw parallels between porn usage and various forms of drug usage, and to suggest psychiatrists should ask about porn usage.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
13. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-01 16:12 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Well, some high school students can identify that trashy novels about married chicks banging reverends would be porn in the 1800's while some people can never see the obvious because an "expert" told them that the novel was quality writing. The later will spend their lives thinking that the writing is so incredible that 'only the worthy can see it!'.
14. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  OTOH, more porn watching == less intrusive sexual thoughts == more conscious freedom to use higher cerebral functions?
15. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Z00L00K · 2014-06-01 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the correlation and cause is interesting here, and I doubt that the brain shrinks because the person watches porn, it's more likely that the reward processing area is small from the beginning and therefore requires more stimuli to produce the sufficient effect.
  Another question is also if the persons with restrictions in the reward processing drives themselves harder than those with a more developed reward processing. This leads to the counterpart - the person with a well-developed reward area that may find the most mundane things rewarding and therefore are content with things as they are.
  So it may not necessarily be bad to have a restriction in the reward area - it may be the driving force for more than porn watching.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
16. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by jandersen · 2014-06-01 22:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Porn is not really an easily defined term.
  I would tend to disagree - and you hint at the definition yourself: "...it was immediately clear that it wasn't great writing. It was just 1800's porn." I think one of the things that make up porn is the fact that it is void of anything worthwhile, unless you appreciate its one selling point. In fact, you can extend the definition of porn to a lot of other products that use media to deliver this kind of monotonous, narrowly focused form without content. Like computer games that are all gore and no story, or tv channels that are nothing more than outlets for selling cheap crap. And quite possibly certain items of modern art, altough I admit the failing in this case may be due to my lack of sensitivity.
17. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  They don't actually assert that the correlation was because of reward-seeking addict-like behaviour they actually said that, working on the assumption that pornography consumption shares characteristics of 'reward-seeking behavior, novelty-seeking behavior, and addictive behavior' they decided to see if the two variables in question correlated. They were r{64}=0.432, P.001. It might be because their assumptions were right, but it is likely it isn't the exclusive reason for pornography consumption, nor am I aware are they claiming this and I would be surprised if they did.
  If it hasn't already been done, you can correlate porn usage with lack of access to sexual partners or something, but that is way beyond the scope of this study.
  I'm not willing to comment too much on the alcohol/drug aspect of the study, as I don't have access to it, but I'm not sure how strong a conclusion they can draw from the subset of 64 people that have the addiction problems they looked at. You only reported r to me so I can't really say anything based just on that, can I?
18. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by drinkypoo · 2014-06-02 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hahaha. But don't assume. OP left out something that is important to keep in mind here: most people in modern society watch pornography to some extent. They even admit to it in polls (which means the polls probably don't count everybody who really does).
  
  Only by strenuously avoiding advertising can one avoid pornography. You only see soft-core stuff in public places, to be sure, but pornography is material designed to arouse the prurient interest. The definition does not include "not for commercial gain", oh the irony if it did. How many people do you know that look away from commercials because they contain an attractive person, dressed so as to accentuate their attributes? They're watching porn.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-02 01:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  Just for your convenience, then, here are all the statistics from the paper:
  
  Research in the United States has shown that 66% of men and 41% of women consume pornography on a monthly basis.3 An estimated 50% of all Internet traffic is related to sex.4
  
  Sixty-four healthy male participants (mean [SD] age, 28.9 [6.62] years, range 21-45 years) were recruited.
  
  Because the distribution of the reported PHs [hours of pornography use per week] was skewed and not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Z=1.54; P<.05), we transformed the variable by means of square root (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Z=0.77; P=.59).
  
  The overall Internet Sex Screening Test score was positively correlated with the reported PHs (r64=0.389, P<.01). On the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, participants scored 1.35 on average (SD, 2.03). A positive correlation was observed between PHs and Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test score (r64=0.250, P<.05) and Beck Depression Inventory score (r64=0.295, P<.05).
  
  And just because it's so important to the science, the rest of the results:
  
  When correlating PHs (square root) with GM segmentations, we found a significant negative association in the right striatum, namely caudate nucleus (based on the automated anatomical labeling atlas34; peak voxel: x=11, y=5, z=3; P<.001; corrected for multiple comparisons) (Figure 1A). When we used a lower threshold of P<.005, an additional cluster in the left caudate reached significance (x=6, y=0, z=6), showing that the effect is not clearly lateralized. We refer to the cluster as the striatum; however, for the subsequent discussion, it is noteworthy that the cluster overlaps with a reward processing literature-based probabilistic region of interest of the ventral striatum, created by means of in-house software35 (predominantly monetary-incentive delay task, see eAppendix in Supplement for details).
  As for alternative hypotheses, the only one they present is "Individuals with lower striatum volume may need more external stimulation to experience pleasure and might therefore experience pornography consumption as more rewarding, which may in turn lead to higher PHs."
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
20. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2014-06-02 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes your dick hard, it's porn.
  That's easy, but subjective. There is a wide range of subject matter that is porn for *somebody*, but not necessarily everybody. Since the study measures consumption is hours per week, it would appear that the data for hours is self-reported, so each subject applies their own definition to their viewing habits
  
  --
  I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
21. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by LordLimecat · 2014-06-02 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Forgive me if I dont think being in high school lit qualifies one to remark on the merits of literature. And frankly it isnt surprising that a highschooler holds a high view of himself and a condescending view towards others.
  And-- its been about a decade and a half-- but as I recall there were significant themes of revenge, forgiveness, guilt, and so on in the book. It was also one of the first views I (and Im sure many others) got of puritan culture from a writer of the period.
22. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by kimvette · 2014-06-02 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  > Don't assume it means anything—the striatum's primary function is coordinating motor control.
  Perhaps it does not have to develop as much when all it is controlling is muscles for the elbow and wrist? ;)
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
23. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-02 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Being in high school lit doesn't qualify one to recognize that The Scarlet letter is antique porn. Being a thinking human qualifies one to recognize it. Even if they are only in high school lit. The fact that you couldn't recognize the difference between what I said, and what you heard is a good indication on why you can't see the obvious and must rely on an 'expert' to tell you what is and isn't good writing.
  
  significant themes of revenge, forgiveness, guilt
  There is plenty of that in modern porn too. That in no way indicates quality writing.
  
  It was also one of the first views I (and Im sure many others) got of puritan culture from a writer of the period.
  Your ignorance does not stop it from being trashy porn.
  
  Your emperor has no clothes.
24. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  You are using a completely different definition than the vast majority of the rest of the population. Thus my point stands.
25. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  So, http://xhamster.com/ isn't porn if it is being watched by a guy that is impotent? And women or physically incapable of watching porn?
  
  If they are using each person's individual definition of porn, then their data is completely invalid. They in no way measured porn consumption.
26. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by cout · 2014-06-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Predisposition toward alcoholism has a strong genetic component, relating to the rate of metabolism of alcohol and its metabolites. I would only expect there to be a strong correlation between alcoholism and pornography usage if there is also a strong correlation between alcoholism and other similar behaviors.
27. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-02 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The study asserts that there is; alcoholism and other drug addictions are already associated with striatum differences.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
28. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-02 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Alas, they also noted differences in brain activation when the subjects were shorn pornographic imagery, so that joke doesn't quite work, unless they were secretly controlling their muscles for the elbow and wrist in the MRI tube. But we can pretend it does!
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
29. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Porn has no affect on me. your dumm.
30. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  And it was still shitty writing plain and simple. If it were complicated, 7th and 8th graders wouldn't be reading it. They save all the good Shakespeare for 12th grade. I wonder why that is? I agree with Belia and will add to it: Hawthorne wrote shitty porn for simpletons.
31. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by mod+prime · 2014-06-02 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, that's totally awesome of you!
32. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2014-06-03 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Consider $(DICK_HARD) to be a meta-variable indicating consumption of media for the purpose of sexual stimulation, indicated by the release of dopamine in the brain, possibly accompanied by a corresponding gender-appropriate physical manifestation.
  The correlation found by the study is between (possibly) self-reported hours of consciously choosing to watch porn and physical brain measurements. The correlation is real. Haggling over what is and isn't porn is not going to accomplish anything except making you feel better about your own porn consumption. Just because *almost* everybody does it does not mean that there are no harmful effects. And just because *most* people who say they don't are lying about it doesn't mean that all people who say they don't are lying about it.
  
  --
  I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
33. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by micahraleigh · 2014-06-03 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Deviance from the norm is usually good.
  
  If it matters, Francis Bacon just SMS'd me and confirmed it.
34. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by micahraleigh · 2014-06-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Are you going to look back on your life and say, "I inspired people to use really well defined terms!" ?
35. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-03 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't need to 'feel better about my porn consumption'. You are projecting your own sexual repression on to those around you. "Haggling" over what is and isn't porn is absolutely necessary. You are trying to claim that porn is harmful, yet you don't want to define what it really is. Your first definition was wrong beyond reason, and your modified, "I really meant", definition would include a non-stop barrage of porn on the vast majority of humanity on a daily basis for as long as there have been creatures called "human" on the planet. Given that an absence of porn (by your definition) is, and always has been incredibly rare in human history, a claim that it is harmful, betrays more of your own sexual dysfunction.
36. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-03 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I would be very happy to look back at my life and say that when the times that I did it was in the context of studies that purport to be scientific studies. I can honestly say that anyone who can say "I inspired people to use really well defined terms [in scientific studies]!" has added to the advancement of the human race.
  
  It is much better than those of you who look back on their life and say "I inspired people to make invalid scientific claims and helped to fleece people into believing invalid studies!"
37. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by micahraleigh · 2014-06-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is like going into a supermarket and moving cookies from the snack section to the dessert section.
  
  OK ...
  
  But as a grocery shopper I am really just interested in getting my cookies and not which stores organize products differently.
  
  In the same way I recommend examining the content of one's life instead of how people organize that content differently as a pretext to not taking such an inventory.
38. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-04 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is like putting candy orange slices into the health food section because they are "fat free", "good source of vitamin C", "gluten free", "made with all natural ingredients", and "made with orange juice".
  
  In short, it is lying. And it is dangerous when those lies are used to convince the gullible to be self destructive. As a grocery shopper, you just want to buy candy and tell yourself that you are buying health food. If you want to live a life of self delusion, that is your decision, but those of us that would call out the lie are not the ones who will be looking back and thinking we made mistakes.
39. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by micahraleigh · 2014-06-05 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm ... So you're saying the study correlating small brain sizes with people who watch porn is lying because they are lying about the magnitude of the porn (hard core, soft-porn, slightly-below porn, etc).
  
  In the case of your (example) selling delicious unhealthy food as healthy food I can see the motivation (selling mislabled products for an unfair profit). But what do the people in this study have to gain from mis-labeling what kind of porn was involved in the study? Why does it matter how different lumps of people draw the line (if all these products are reached for with exactly the same intent)?
  
  This seems like a study showing people who steal are unattractive to the opposite sex, and someone objecting saying this doesn't apply to stealing episodes of Game of Thrones because that objecting person likes that show or whatever. And that not making these atom-splitting distinctions is lying somehow.
40. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-05 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because they are not correlating porn with small brain sizes. They are not even correlating porn with a specific region of the brain being smaller. They are not correlating porn to anything, because they are using the word porn without a definition. As for motivation, you seriously need to ask that? The puritanically obsessed people in our society have been shunning anything sexual since before we were even a nation. See the entire gay marrage debate as an example of how people would feel it was their duty to control other peoples sexuality,.
  
  Your analogy is still wrong. It is like a study showing people who steal are unattractive to the opposite sex, and then, sometimes, counting singing happy birthday at a child's birthday party, sometimes, including downloading a TV show off the internet, sometimes counting not watching the commercials when a you are watching TV, sometimes counting armed robbery of a Quickee Mart, and sometimes counting telling a joke at a party without finishing off telling everyone where you heard the joke.
  
  You see, we are not talking about casual conversation. We are talking about something being passed off as a scientific study. Beyond the damage done by the specific study, it puts all science in a bad light. You ever wonder why people don't trust scientists? Because made up crap like this is consistently passed off as science. YOU are responsible people dismissing scientific studies. YOU and your kind are responsible for people not getting vaccinated. YOU are responsible for people not trusting climate scientist. Because YOU endorse and encourage bad science. Congratulations, that's what you get to look back on your life and be proud of.
41. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by micahraleigh · 2014-06-06 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  You said:
  
  Because they are not correlating porn with small brain sizes. They are not even correlating porn with a specific region of the brain being smaller.
  
  This is from the summary above:
  
  "German researchers looked at the brains of 64 men between the ages of 21 and 45 and found that one brain region (the striatum, linked to reward processing), was smaller in the brains of porn watchers, and that a specific part of the same region is also less activated when exposed to more pornography."
  
  Was the summary wrong? Did you forget what the article was about? Did you reject it out of hand?
  
  I openly believe people would be better off listening to scientific studies LESS because the scientists are more interested in pushing their own opinions on morality and politics on people than they are learning things. Science is about observation and experimentation, in other words, it is superficial truth at best.
42. Re:Do you give up higher cerebral function by Belial6 · 2014-06-06 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the summery is wrong. "Porn" is an undefined value. That is what we have been arguing about. Thus they did not make any comparison between porn watchers and non-porn watchers because, again, "Porn" is not defined. Do you have any idea what it even is you have been arguing?
Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by symbolset · 2014-06-01 09:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Where did they find them?

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I watched a TED talk about the effect of pornography on the male brain and the presenter described how difficult it was for him to find control subjects for his study.
2. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Somehow I'd bet the brain area in question is larger in compulsive liars, regardless of the exposure to adult entertainment.
3. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by kesuki · 2014-06-01 10:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Where did they find them?"
  after the teenage burst, its really easy to quit porn. when i was a teen porn there was no such thing as too much porn, but the older i got the less interested in it i was. i think my record is 3 years no porn and of course no masturbation. but then again i am not typical and haven't even had sex, despite being 36 years old. and yes i am still living in my parents basement. but i pay rent to them they needed the extra income and they are getting older and it is good to see them once in a while.
  
  --
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
4. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  I am male and I don't usually use any porn for masturbation.
5. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, get a box of condoms and try a hooker. It's going to wither away if you don't use it.
6. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Try posting on craigslist if yourlooking to get laid. Worked pretty well for my firzt but not so much after. However waiting so long, it'll be a couple times before you can actually feel anything or get off no matter how long you go at it. Took almost 3 hours my first, never less than 30 minutes since.
7. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by WillKemp · 2014-06-01 11:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I watched a TED talk about the effect of pornography on the male brain and the presenter described how difficult it was for him to find control subjects for his study.
  That suggests that they've got their idea of "control" back to front.
8. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  You get fewer paper cuts by using your hand any way.
9. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Could you masturbate in an MRI machine or with an array of electrodes on your head? With people watching?
10. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by tloh · 2014-06-01 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Amish communities?
  
  --
  Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
11. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by schnell · 2014-06-01 15:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  i think my record is 3 years no porn and of course no masturbation. but then again i am not typical and haven't even had sex, despite being 36 years old.
  Correct. You are not typical. Your experience may be very normal in a community you would identify with such as asexuality, or it could potentially be associated with a disorder, such as hyposexuality.
  Your situation may be entirely healthy and rewarding for you, and that's great. And, frankly, you have probably saved a lot of money, time and heartache compared to many of us on the other side of that spectrum! I would just caution you not to use it as a yardstick for most other people in judging questions of sexuality.
  
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
12. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Shakrai · 2014-06-01 16:00 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Dude, get a box of condoms and try a hooker.
  Condoms have limited efficacy against herpes and HPV, both of which you'll get to enjoy for the rest of your life if you manage to catch them. To each their own, but I'd reconsider the hooker suggestion and just stick with the porn, there's no orgasm worth a lifetime affliction....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
13. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by VillageDolt · 2014-06-01 16:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Actually, this is my most erotic fantasy!!
  
  --
  justa lurker
14. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2014-06-01 16:52 · Score: 2
  
  People have had sex in an MRI machine. Though not while doing brain scans (they were fMRI ing the abdominal area).
15. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by symbolset · 2014-06-01 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  So you are a 36 year old virgin with limited outside contact and you think you should be included in their samples. Tell me: how would they have found you to get your valuable input on this issue?
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
16. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by symbolset · 2014-06-01 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Amish have got it going on. Don't mistake their dislike of technology for a neglect of their humanity.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
17. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  You were a teen porn? So did you jack off to yourself?
18. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't, but there are bound to be people who would get a hard on just hearing your idea.
19. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 19:45 · Score: 0
  
  Eh. You can bet your head on the fact tthat amish teenagers have porn, and do watch it. Might not be internet porn, but they still do make the old fashioned paper copies also.
20. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by stifler9999 · 2014-06-01 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  There are only two types of men in this world, wankers and liars!!
21. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by TapeCutter · 2014-06-01 21:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Though not while doing brain scans (they were fMRI ing the abdominal area)
  Quite likely because orgasams are not created in the brain, they happen in a small bundle of neurons at the base of the spine, in fact a fresh corpse is capable of orgasam if the area is stimulated with a mild electric current. Further if you wire this up in a live rat so all it has to do is pull a lever to get an orgasm, it will hang off the lever until it dies of dehydration.
  
  As to TFA, if video porn is shrinking your brain, what is a good sex life doing to it? Seriously, if you have a healthy sex life then watching porn together is quite often a part of that. Also watching porm does not imply that you like ALL porn anymore than watching a cartoon means you like all cartoons. Males are much more likely to enjoy porn because males are (in general) are much more sensitive to visual stimulation. Also a faie chunk of the porn out there is not catering to sexual desire, it's catering to the desire for power (SM), or catering to catholic style guilt, ie people who revel in being "dirty" (ATM).
  
  To paraphrase Sagan, Science is more than a grab-bag of factoids, it's a philosophy, a way of thinking. I have no doubt these people carefully observed something interesting, but it seems to me they have prematurely jumped on the conclusion mat that best fits their worldview. OTOH it does generate way more questions than it answers, and according to Natural philosophy, that's a GoodThing(TM)
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
22. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by TapeCutter · 2014-06-01 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  there's no orgasm worth a lifetime affliction
  That's why we have no fault divorce nowadays. - Yet another thing you ungrateful little snots can thank us "boomers" for. Oh, and you're on my lawn, you know what to do!
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
23. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by rmdingler · 2014-06-02 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  To each their own, but I'd reconsider the hooker suggestion and just stick with the porn, there's no orgasm worth a lifetime affliction....
  There is one affliction worth the trouble. It's the one that eventually makes you a grandparent.
  And hell, by the time you have grandkids, you don't have to tell them what granny did for a living. It's like a Christmas lie.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
24. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  No fault divorce is terrible.
25. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2014-06-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Probably this one:
  http://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU
  This video started a journey for me that is still continuing. Anyone interested should check out the links in the About text on the YouTube page.
  The correlation reported in the study was relative to hours per week (actually, the square root of that), so although there were no full abstainers there were some participants who watched less porn than others.
  
  --
  I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
26. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't the other side of the spectrum be nymphomania or satyriasis?
27. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you think it is that hard to find anyone?
  Some people may prefer other methods of getting off, like strip clubs, which I have never, nor will I ever set foot into one. Just because it is available doesn't mean everyone uses it. People do have different preferences.
28. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by camazotz · 2014-06-02 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Your tale was the scariest goddamn thing I've read all year.
29. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Here:https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q
30. Re:Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  "So you are a 36 year old virgin with limited outside contact and you think you should be included in their samples. Tell me: how would they have found you to get your valuable input on this issue?"
  through the nsa spying?
31. Re: Presumably this is relative to porn abstainers by micahraleigh · 2014-06-03 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Should sex have anything to do with love? Commitment? Devotion?
It's the other way around by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 09:57 · Score: 0

The brain of the non-porn watchers is swollen!
This means... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 09:58 · Score: 1

watching enough porn ensures a clear mind, not distracted from ancient reward mechanisms in decision-making. It also leaves more room for important brain functions.
Why else should special agents like 007 be so damn cool? Lot's of sex is probably working even better than watching lots of porn.
64? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:00 · Score: 0

Holy shit, 64 brains!? That's gotta be a percentage of the human race or something!
FAP FAP FAP FAP
Well by relisher · 2014-06-01 10:00 · Score: 1

Well shit
1. Re:Well by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-01 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy.
  Or to civilized society for that matter.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:Well by Nephandus · 2014-06-02 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  For what? Orgies? Oh, wait those aren't in fashion this century. Do swinging count yet? Males usually need a partner for that though. Hookup culture? That's expensive in time and resources, unless you're a very pretty male, and, even if you're the bank, you're still the entertainment unless the girl's actually got kinks for that (as opposed to the majority of dom chicks who like to play a very fake sub while controlling the entire scene, just like most any vanilla coyness shtick), so the porn's better there anyway.
  
  --
  "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seeing as we have no evidence that such an area being smaller is a good or a bad thing I would caution away from using this information as anything more than an observation.
1. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your girlfriend or wife will say no, it's how you use it, but that's only a half truth.
  Someone with a smaller striatum who knows how to use it is likely going to give more pleasure than someone with a large striatum who is clueless about how the female brain works, but women prefer someone with a large striatum who knows how to use it over either.
  Of course, your striatum can be too large - and despite what you see in the movies, women do not like having their hippocampus jostled by some monster brainpart.
2. Re:Does Size Matter? by afgam28 · 2014-06-01 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Does size matter? Not when you're fapping to porn I guess.
3. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  What about technique? If you spend years fapping with the goal of getting off, what happens when/if you find yourself having sex with a woman? Are you going to be able last long enough to bring her pleasure or are those years of training/fapping going to affect you? Hmmmmm...
4. Re:Does Size Matter? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-06-01 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  The portion of the brain that shrinks is the region which helps one distinguish attractive women from nasty sluts.
5. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Size most certainly matters when it comes to the heart or liver.
6. Re:Does Size Matter? by Tablizer · 2014-06-01 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I just use a smaller font to better match my dick. (Please, no WingDing jokes.)
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
7. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the good old Brain Penis!
8. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  How is font related to your cock?
9. Re:Does Size Matter? by Phroggy · 2014-06-01 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your girlfriend or wife will say no, it's how you use it, but that's only a half truth.
  Someone with a smaller striatum who knows how to use it is likely going to give more pleasure than someone with a large striatum who is clueless about how the female brain works, but women prefer someone with a large striatum who knows how to use it over either.
  Of course, your striatum can be too large - and despite what you see in the movies, women do not like having their hippocampus jostled by some monster brainpart.
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
10. Re:Does Size Matter? by soccerisgod · 2014-06-01 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  More research required! To the fapmobile!
  
  --
  If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
11. Re:Does Size Matter? by AmiMoJo · 2014-06-02 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Condoms are the biggest factor in sexual pleasure for both partners. It's really hard to find good ones that fit, at least in my experience, and using the wrong ones is no good for either partner. Of course it's better not to use them at all if you have no concerns about disease or pregnancy, but depending on your lifestyle that might not be possible.
  Someone needs to invent something better than a condom.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Does Size Matter? by rmdingler · 2014-06-02 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not certain the two are mutually exclusive.
  Chances are, a person who possesses the physical characteristics most folks find attractive will have more opportunities to engage in the dance with no pants. If s/he turns down 90% of them, s/he may still have a more complete dance card than a discerning average-looking test subject with a 50% rejection rate.
  Does a greater number of partners equal greater probability of being referred to as Jezebel, the noble slut god?
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
13. Re:Does Size Matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  They did, is called monogamy. Not for everyone thou
14. Re:Does Size Matter? by micahraleigh · 2014-06-03 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Science/evidence can't tell you what is good or bad.
  
  If you thought it could you would be, by definition, judging by appearances.
  
  Which, by the way, is what porn, superficiality, etc. are all about.
bunch of liars by KiloByte · 2014-06-01 10:05 · Score: 2, Funny

In other words, people with a smaller brain region are less capable of speaking the truth.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
1. Re:bunch of liars by binarylarry · 2014-06-01 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  And KiloBytes seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:bunch of liars by KiloByte · 2014-06-01 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  There are three kinds of men:
  * those who admit to watching porn / ogling women /etc
  * those who lie
  * those below the age of 12
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
3. Re:bunch of liars by Rob+the+Bold · 2014-06-01 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think binarylarry's assumption is that people lie by saying they don't read/watch/use porn when they do, rather than lie that they do when they don't. (Based on the assumption that it's socially more acceptable to deny that accusation.) And therefore, the ones claiming non-use are the liars, and thus the larger striatum was a component of the propensity of or capacity for lying.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
Well, by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-06-01 10:06 · Score: 1

...
100% by mattyj · 2014-06-01 10:06 · Score: 1

So I'm guessing their control subject brains were in jars and were collected 100's of years ago, because if you pick 64 random dudes anywhere on Earth, 64 of them will be porn watchers.
1. Re:100% by PopeRatzo · 2014-06-01 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. As I got older and had a kid, I don't really have the stomach for exploitation any more.
  It's why I don't watch porn or college football like I used to. I can't really chalk it up to growth, because I'm still the same jerk I ever was, but I can't enjoy seeing people get used and hurt.
  Having said that, if the Blackhawks lose game 7 tonight against the Kings, I may have to turn to pornhub to assuage my existential pain.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:100% by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  Whoever wins had better beat the Rangers!
3. Re:100% by WillKemp · 2014-06-01 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really have the stomach for exploitation any more.
  Porn =/= exploitation. It's not hard to find non-exploitative porn.
4. Re:100% by PopeRatzo · 2014-06-02 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's not hard to find non-exploitative porn.
  I don't know. If that's true, then that's good, but it's still complicated.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:100% by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Great so lets have a look:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film
  "Exploitation film is an informal label which may be applied to any film which is generally considered to be low budget, and therefore apparently attempting to gain financial success by "exploiting" a current trend or a niche genre or a base desire for lurid subject matter."
  Even if you leave out the value statement porn is still cheap, are there any render farms for porn out there at all btw? Maybe be a different kind of complicated but still, ...
Peer reviewed? by MindPrison · 2014-06-01 10:08 · Score: 1

Has this study been peer reviewed yet?

--
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
1. Re:Peer reviewed? by WarJolt · 2014-06-01 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Only by these guys http://www.xxxchurch.com/.
Lemme get this straight... by The_Star_Child · 2014-06-01 10:09 · Score: 4, Funny

So all guys have a smaller region of the brain?
1. Re:Lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  No, only those who do not lie about watching porn.
2. Re:Lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  So all guys have a smaller region of the brain?
  That's what I came away from it with. Who were the control subjects? Women?
Correlation does not imply causation by volkerdi · 2014-06-01 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

More pseudoscience. They say that they're not sure whether this means that porn shrinks your brain, or if the shrunken brain causes porn viewing. But, this leaves out the very real possibility that this correlation means nothing whatsoever. The site below collects correlations that look pretty convincing in the graphs, but quite obviously are unlikely to be cases of causation in either direction:
http://www.tylervigen.com/
1. Re:Correlation does not imply causation by Bob_Who · 2014-06-01 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  They were thinking with the wrong head, perhaps.
  
  Some of the most inspired ideas came with little heads.
  
  In fact, to cure "smaller portions" I've noticed porn is a "swell" idea ....
  
  ... On my slack time, of course.
  
  ;-)
2. Re:Correlation does not imply causation by bunratty · 2014-06-01 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sure, there are many correlations among things that obviously have no relationship to each other. If you take all data on all topics under the sun, I'm sure you can find tons of coincidences.
  But we do know that the brain influences behavior, and our experience shapes our brain. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's pretty likely that watching porn causes a small striatum, or a small striatum causes men to watch more porn, or some other factor is causing both. It might be a coincidence from that data, but we could discover if this is the case by collecting more data. If the correlation becomes much weaker from more data, we can then conclude that it was just a coincidence. This is why we repeat experiments in science, so no, this is not pseudoscience as you claim.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
3. Re:Correlation does not imply causation by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's a technical paper in a medical journal. The intended audience doesn't need to be taught the fundamentals of statistics. That's why it was 'left out'.
4. Re:Correlation does not imply causation by Belial6 · 2014-06-01 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the possibility that a large striatum causes men to lie about watching porn.
5. Re:Correlation does not imply causation by micahraleigh · 2014-06-03 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Correlation is the only thing science does.
  
  If you want to exclude using observation to correlate two seemingly independent things you are dumping science entirely!
  
  I'm not saying that would be bad. In fact I think we'd all be less superficial for doing that. But don't dump science in the name of science !!
everyone's a brain scientist now by globaljustin · 2014-06-01 10:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is an interesting question to research but I wish TFA wasn't paywalled b/c there are several factors they'd need to address that aren't mentioned in the description.
1. is this just *watching* porn or watching and fapping...also fapping w/o any physical media stimuli
2. they'd need to compare a control test with a completely different behavior/stimuli that triggers those same parts of the brain...it's "reward center" so maybe something with video games or receiving compliments on your appearance
3. what about actual sex? does it do the same thing to this part of the brain? I know /.'ers probably can't imagine this but it's possible to have sex too much so I'd definitey need to see if actual sex is any different than their results with porn.
those are some good starters...plenty of room for further research which means job security ;)

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
1. Re:everyone's a brain scientist now by CanadianRealist · 2014-06-01 10:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As someone with a long history of depression and high intelligence I've spent quite a bit of time trying to understand my condition. One thing I've noted frequently is that I tend to derive less enjoyment than other people from most activities. (I think this is a cause of the depression rather than a result of it.) The most notable exception is sexual gratification, whether from sex with a partner or from masturbation. I don't find this surprising as I think that it is such a basic part of the way our brains are wired. Given that I am not in a relationship more often than I am, I frequently watch porn to masturbate.
  So in my case, I'd say it seems likely that a deficiency in the part of the brain associated with reward processing causes a greater exposure to porn.
2. Re:everyone's a brain scientist now by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  1. It is 'consuming porn' which can be either
  2. It wasn't an experiment it was a correlational study, so no control is needed.
  3. Out of scope
  Fortunately you didn't need to get beyond the paywall to answer them. And although I don't have access to the JAMA network, having read a lot of psych papers I'm confident a phrase such as 'suggests further research is required' is in there.
3. Re:everyone's a brain scientist now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Try not to take this defensively, but your claim goes in the face of just about everything that is known about depression. As someone in the same boat (come on does anyone think they aren't intelligent, or have a bad sense of humor?) a lot of times smart people can get really weird ideas about depression because they are grasping at straws. You're looking at this completely backwards, and it worries me others might see it and apply the same logic and forgo things that would help them.
  The reason why you are attaining some level of gratification from sex and/or masturbation is because you are self-medicating. You are getting something out of it. It is basically acting as a mild anti-depressant. This can actually become kind of dangerous, where you'll find people going into a cycle of depression and masturbating 10 times a day because it makes them feel more normal and can then cause escalation where you're looking for weirder and weirder stuff.
  It's the exact same reason that exercise has been shown to help people with mild to moderate depression the same way that antidepressants can -- but it has the issue that you can't just sit there. Energy levels for depressed people are really low, so getting into an exercise routine can feel beyond them. There are some weird ones, like cigarettes seem to have compounds that somewhat deflect depression -- there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of somewhat depressed people stopping smoking and then really spiraling. Interestingly, vaping doesn't seem to have an effect, so it isn't just nicotine.
  Anyways, sorry for what you are going through and I hope you're able to get help. Even if you are super super smart, this is not the sort of thing you can think or hack your way out of unless it is mild and you catch it very quickly.
4. Re:everyone's a brain scientist now by Znork · 2014-06-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't quite get how what he says would go against what is known about depression? Apart from a short time of excessive popularity for the serotonin theory of depression, most of the time multiple neuro transmittors and brain regions have been implicated, with frustratingly difficult to trace causes and effects. Failures in the reward system could easily feed back into lower motivation leading into failures leading into depression, just as the other way around would lead to similar effects.
  On the topic of smoking, tobacco contains harmala alkaloids which have reversible MAOI effects. They would be a strong contender for the anti-depressant effect. And yes, did the quit-smoking, spiral into depression and burnout thing.
5. Re:everyone's a brain scientist now by Xenna · 2014-06-01 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  "I think this is a cause of the depression rather than a result of it."
  Third possibility: it *is* the depression.
So the "you'll go blind" thing could be right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:13 · Score: 0

So the "you'll go blind" thing could be right after all...
1. Re:So the "you'll go blind" thing could be right by Tablizer · 2014-06-01 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Dontt bee silley, i t haas noot offect ed me eeysihgtt
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Island by umghhh · 2014-06-01 10:15 · Score: 1

I heard that Island is going to delegalize pr0n - could this act of law be considered a mutilation of innocent Island males then as it obviously affects their brains?
1. Re:Island by DeathElk · 2014-06-01 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Which island? Australia?
2. Re:Island by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  I meant Iceland. I knew proof reading could help, still I missed that.
watching porn = weight loss by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:19 · Score: 0

Shrink unneeded areas of the brain, lower your center of gravity, and reduce neck pain! Watch porn today!
so did they really find men that don't watch porn by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 10:20 · Score: 1

or did they find some men that watch porn and some men that lie
Striatum by Znork · 2014-06-01 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The striatum is implicated in ADHD and several studies have indicated reduced grey matter volume in that region for ADHD sufferers. Failure in the dopamine pathways will generally cause engagement in dopamine releasing activities, as a method of self medication.
So it's not like finding a correlation between dopamine seeking and striatum deficiencies is unexpected. And the most likely direction of causation is that the deficient reward region causes the increased porn watching.
Frankly I find the gleeful reporting on the issue to be somewhat offensive. Insinuating that what is probably an inherent handicap is something the handicapped did to themselves by being 'immoral' is quite disgusting.
1. Re:Striatum by CanadianRealist · 2014-06-01 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is interesting. I posted elsewhere the idea that something like a "striatum deficiency" (as you phrase it) may be the cause of my depression and frequent porn watching. I didn't think of ADHD, but a few years ago I was diagnosed as having ADHD.
2. Re: Striatum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's funny you say that. I am an adult that has been diagnosed as having ADHD, though to be honest - I'm not sure I believe it is actually anything abnormal but hey, they give you speed which is great, LOL. It's been years that I have been "treated" for my ADHD, and my masturbation and appetitie for porn has gone up exponentially. I could go a couple of weeks without beating off before, now I can go a day or two sometimes and not think about doing it at most. And some days, I masturbate every few hours. I don't technically need the porn to do so, but I do feel more "satisfied" when I do, as in immediately after I feel no need to go out and find "real" sex, whereas if I just masturbate without porn I'm more likely to call up a fuck buddy later that day and have sex. It's useful because I often just don't have time to do that, and it's so much less hassle as well.
3. Re:Striatum by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-01 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly I find the gleeful reporting on the issue to be somewhat offensive. Insinuating that what is probably an inherent handicap is something the handicapped did to themselves by being 'immoral' is quite disgusting.
  That is actually a very good point. The constraints of society are possibly very connected to Pornography and it's use. SO acting like it's all hairy palms and "Yer brain is a-gonna shrink!" is just nastiness.
  Men's primal reproductive urges are not intrinsically tied into monogamy. Whereas women do have a strong interest in getting and keeping one male.
  A male can father a lot of offspring, so it is possible that there was some reproductive advantage to serial partners. From his standpoint. It is interesting how the difference has arisen between the sexes.
  Today, with the artificially extended childhood we use, where we think that people are too young to get married and have families at an age where they would have already been grandparents around a century ago, some even starting families at an age beyond their anticipated life expectancy at that time, puts further pressure on men to be monogamous.
  So even without masturbation involved, men tend to have a strong interest in more than one woman, so porn has a big market. I'm firmly convinced that it's ubiquity is directly related to being an outlet for their interests that doesn't threaten pair bonding.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:Striatum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  What about the effect that I have also observed where over time a given pornographic stimulus no longer carries the same weight as a stimulus, leading to seeking out more specific and arousing content that does (which usually continues in a spiral over time). I personally try to restrict my usage because I find it interferes with the pleasure I receive from my real girlfriend. As an example scenario, if I were to watch an hour of porn a day over a week, gradually more and more hard core content, I find that after a week my mind feels number to regular sex and I am no longer as aroused. Abstaining from porn for a period of a week or so reverses this mostly in my case.
  Disclaimer: I do have low level depressive tendencies which may impact the results.
5. Re:Striatum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't everyone now ADHD? It's the next hysteria.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
6. Re:Striatum by Bismuthprince · 2014-06-02 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak with a lot of authority, but my girlfriend currently does a study in animal and wildlife management.
  According to her, the idea that monogamy is 100% benificial to the female of a species is wrong. Where both males and females have a distinct advantage by staying together to ensure the survival of their offspring; females also have an advantage by diversifying the genetic code of their offspring. Having multiple children with multiple fathers ensures that their 50% of the child's genetic code (which, coincidentally, is always the same 50% whereas males donate one of two types of genetic information) is paired with different codes who have different survival rates depending on conditions.
  But to be honest, I can't offer too much insight on what this would mean for humanity; other than the desire for others seems innate in both genders.
7. Re:Striatum by DamianJPound · 2014-06-03 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  They are simply saying there is a correlation, they aren't sure which causes the other or if something separate is the cause for brain region size and porn watching.
  Also, are you trying to say watching porn is immoral?!?
8. Re:Striatum by micahraleigh · 2014-06-04 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Immorality induces a fugitive mentality, which we have all had at one point or another.
  
  Everyone starts to look like the morality cops.
  
  What people don't realize is alienation from morality is commensurate with alienating any kind of meaningful self.
  
  An interesting psychological examination on this topic: The Sickness Unto Death by Kierkegaard.
In other news by stevez67 · 2014-06-01 10:21 · Score: 1

Study Finds Porn Exposure Associated With Almost Everything, If You Parse The Data Correctly (FTFY)
I named it. by PopeRatzo · 2014-06-01 10:22 · Score: 1

Are we talking about the big brain or the little brain?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
"brain scientist" by oldhack · 2014-06-01 10:32 · Score: 1

Well, at least "foot scientists" know some bits about how feet work, unlike "brain scientists" who know about jack squat how brains work.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Was smaller in the brains of porn watchers, i.e., by Parker+Lewis · 2014-06-01 10:49 · Score: 1

men.
Yeah, well... by sootman · 2014-06-01 10:55 · Score: 1

... at least my forearms are huge.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
1. Re:Yeah, well... by bunratty · 2014-06-01 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Well, one forearm anyway.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
2. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Amateur.
Cheetos by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:03 · Score: 0

Even more shockingly, study finds that participants who were fed cheetos turn out with orange penises. No one knows why.
Porn is visual - fewer senses, less reward by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 11:29 · Score: 1

Couldn't this be due to the fact that watching porn is a primarily visual stimulation, whereas actual sex involves all the senses? Less stimulation, less "reward processing" needed,leading to the striatum being used less.
Perhaps getting them laid more often for a few months and then retesting them would see the striatum increasing in size.
1. Re:Porn is visual - fewer senses, less reward by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  FTFA:
  
  But because the areas of the brain that appear to be affected are linked to rewards and motivation and decision making, some have suggested that porn watchers may be lazier and poor decision-makers.
  Sounds more like they tested Democrats
2. Re:Porn is visual - fewer senses, less reward by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  watching porn is a primarily visual stimulation
  You're doing it wrong.
Re:so did they really find men that don't watch po by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 11:46 · Score: 1

Less than 5% of the men reported approximate 0/hours week consumption.
everyone's consuming porn now by globaljustin · 2014-06-01 11:55 · Score: 1

1. It is 'consuming porn' which can be either
I missed this in TFA...didn't see any distinction made or definition of "consuming" as including fapping.
Where did you get that?

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
1. Re:everyone's consuming porn now by mod+prime · 2014-06-01 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Consumption of pornography is typically a term used to denote the viewing of pornography. This was a relatively simple correlational study of a set of individuals reporting their typical porn consumption in the context of their private lives. I see no evidence in their figures or conclusions that indicate they made any effort to separate out what people might be doing while consuming pornography. Therefore it can be either and more.
Simple enough by russotto · 2014-06-01 12:00 · Score: 1

The smaller the reward region of the brain, the more porn it takes to activate it.
douchest! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:02 · Score: 0

nt
Too late by r1348 · 2014-06-01 12:11 · Score: 1

This made it on /. too late, local media here is already spinning it as "porn makes you stupid (and blind)".
Fuck by WyldPhyr · 2014-06-01 12:40 · Score: 1

Do I have to stop?
Well by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 12:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy.
Too lazy to score. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 13:18 · Score: 0

The brain area is linked to motivation and decision making. Those who lack it are obviously less motivated to go outside and score a girlfriend. Plus, girlfriends take effort to keep happy. Those unmotivated dudes are still just as horny though. And according to the study it takes a lot of stimulation to effect that part of the brain, much more than other people. Hence, porn.
It's a classic chicken and egg question.
1. Re:Too lazy to score. by Nephandus · 2014-06-02 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, how the two "problems" require action of the male in lieu of action the female, usually entirely in the first one and mostly in the second. So would depriving females of these privileges result in any adaptive behavior to balance that ancient unbalance, or will we just get more bitching about the lack of "good men" since any that ironically don't find them worth servicing are by definition "bad"?
  
  --
  "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
As far as I know by Bismuthprince · 2014-06-01 13:40 · Score: 1

There are only two groups of people:
People who watch porn and Liars.
We can safely conclude that liars have slightly more active brains.
Vague comments by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2014-06-01 15:40 · Score: 1

This article has some very vague commentary in it. For example - "brain volume". What are they measuring exactly? Total brain volume? Seems to imply that, but then later they talk about the size of an individual region of the brain.
Now, that's interesting because measuring the size of a brain region is quite tricky. For one thing, if a region seems to shrink, then you're mostly looking at activation patterns. It's not like you lose neurons - it's well known that the brain tends to swap and recruit neurons between brain regions - quite a plastic organ.
And that rather changes the interpretation, since the region they say they're measuring is associated with sexuality stimulus response. Which makes the conclusion kind of mundane: people who watch pornography (and I'll bet a lot of people who are in pornography - or maybe just on HBO) have a reduced response to sexual stimuli.
Is that really a bad thing?
TL;DR? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 16:01 · Score: 0

I can't read good.
And Also by Greyfox · 2014-06-01 16:13 · Score: 1

A larger crotch-region

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
New Study... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 16:51 · Score: 0

New study shows correlation between striatum size and lying. All men in initial study watch porn, but some lied about it.
Obviously by richardclark1985 · 2014-06-01 18:34 · Score: 1

If we get addicted to something it does the feeling is dimmer the more we do it. I think the study has already proved that the reward processing part of our brain gets bored as we increase the habit of watching X-rated content.
Control Group by awshidahak · 2014-06-01 18:54 · Score: 1

The portion of the brain that they were looking at was the one that comes up with lies. Everyone's been exposed to porn, some just lie about it.
other things would be better, alcohol metabolism by raymorris · 2014-06-01 19:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Alcoholism would be among the least useful compulsive behaviors to compare because a large percentage of alcoholics metabolize alcohol differently than non-alcoholics. Therefore a significant portion of the problem is purely physical, not behavioral or centered in the brain. Potheads might be a better comparison - as far as we know, everyone's body processes THC in essentially the same way. There are of course many other compulsive behaviors that seem to be purely psychological / behavioral / brain-based, as opposed to being caused in part by differences in other bodily systems.
Specifically, we know that the difference in alcohol processing is not a RESULT of drinking because non-drinkers who were siblings of alcoholics often displayed the same trait. It appears likely that these siblings were genetically predisposed to become alcoholics, but had not activated the condition by introducing alcohol into their system. The metabolic difference happens after alcohol turns into acetaldehyde. Most people have TWO enzymes that quickly break down the acetaldehyde. Many alcoholics are missing one of the two enzymes, which is controlled by a certain gene that has been mapped. With one of the enzymes missing, the acetaldehyde remains for a much longer period of time. During the period that acetaldehyde is present in significant amounts, the alcoholic experiences the phenomenon of craving - an overpowering desire for more alcohol. Therefore, it seems that alcoholism is largely caused by the lack of an important enzyme, rather than a difference in brain function.
Of course, if a person who is missing the enzyme never becomes intoxicated in the first place, the craving will not be triggered. Also, there are many people who drink excessively but do not lack the enzyme and therefore probably do not have the craving effect. There are of course behavioral and psychological factors involved for these people, who could be called "hard drinkers".
The truth! by SmallFurryCreature · 2014-06-01 19:42 · Score: 2

The truth is that the brain region is used for lying, it is smaller in men who admit to watching porn and larger for men who lie about it.
In women it is about the size of a coconut.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Striatum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 20:14 · Score: 0

Who said anything about it being "immoral"? Is the Donna Reed show still on?
What is a porn watcher? I like to masturbate. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 20:49 · Score: 0

What the hell is a "porn watcher"? I like to masturbate when I watch porn.
If someone were to simply watch porn, doing that and nothing else, I guess I could say that, no wonder the brain of such people end up being "small" (whatever that means).
Just relocation by ketomax · 2014-06-01 21:44 · Score: 1

The shrinking is temporary, just like the sw***ing and is merely a relocation of mass.
Wow, that's quite a smaple size! by dkazaz · 2014-06-01 22:54 · Score: 1

A sample of n=64 to conclude correlation between porn and brain development seems extremely small. Other factors could easily affect the outcome, local diet, exposure to reality TV... But seriously, I'd need to see a sample of 10,000 to buy this.
1. Re:Wow, that's quite a smaple size! by guacamole · 2014-06-02 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. In small enough samples, the power of the test (the probability of rejecting the wrong null hypothesis) can be ridiculously low. Having said that, you can't seriously make statements about how big the sample should be from the top of your hear. The power of the test as well as the consistency of hypothesis testing for a given sample size is dependent on the actual data generating process, which we normally can't observe.
  The second best thing you can do is to _impose_ the assumption of the data generating process, and then run a monte carlo simulation to study the properties of the test you want perform on real data. People often simply use normal distribution, but if they know so properties of data, then can use other distribution as well. This is less perfect, but can shade some light on the sample size you need to make your tests valid. I'd disagree with the "10,000" minimum sample size requirement. Such large sample size is usually required only in certain types of tests involving time series. Cross-sectional data can do with much smaller sample size. For regression based tests, some studies have shown that 300 observations can be enough, while for simple location studies (means, etc) smaller samples could work pretty well.
the paper itself is pay-walled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 23:03 · Score: 0

If "the paper itself is pay-walled" then DON'T LINK TO IT and give them any attention. Paywalled content should die of neglect because it's ignored. Why link to something people can't access? The Internet isn't supposed to work that way.
huh? by iwasacoward · 2014-06-01 23:20 · Score: 0

what?
The paper itself is pay-walled by fellip_nectar · 2014-06-01 23:41 · Score: 1

Instant Access - Only $13.99 a month!

--
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Re:other things would be better, alcohol metabolis by rastos1 · 2014-06-02 00:09 · Score: 1

Therefore, it seems that alcoholism is largely caused by the lack of an important enzyme, rather than a difference in brain function.
Does it mean that we can supply the enzyme to the body and cure alcoholism?
non porn watching men? by YoungManKlaus · 2014-06-02 00:23 · Score: 1

I doubt that very much.
For this study to be accurate... by PortHaven · 2014-06-02 00:29 · Score: 1

It would also need to denote how often said individuals had rewarding sex?
Perhaps these men looking at porn, are also having very little sex. And thus said region is smaler.
1. Re:For this study to be accurate... by drinkypoo · 2014-06-02 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps these men looking at porn, are also having very little sex. And thus said region is smaler.
  I think most men have sex while watching porn. Granted, it's probably typically solo...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:other things would be better, alcohol metabolis by Samantha+Wright · 2014-06-02 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

That may call into question cause, but not consequence; if pursuing a drug addiction causes behavioural changes (which alcoholism certainly does, even when sober) then it is not unreasonable to assume some alteration in activity or structure of the striatum comes as a result of this. The paper cites previous work on the topic, saying that alcoholism (and drug addiction in general) is indeed correlated with changes in the striatum, so I wouldn't really question that part of it too vigorously. My complaint is basically that they seem to be violating a triangle inequality: the brain change is tightly correlated with two addictive behaviours in the sample, but they're only weakly correlated with each other. It sounds to me like porn is correlated with novel changes in the same region.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:other things would be better, alcohol metabolis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 00:55 · Score: 0

How about a citation for all that? Because it really sounds like typical layman exaggeration of narrow study results and going on the information you've provided, there doesn't seem to be anything easy to find in google to back it up. Which if seems unlikely if it were really as clear-cut as you present it.
I doubt it, in most cases. Maybe prevent some. by raymorris · 2014-06-02 02:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Consider another well-known disease that involves a missing compound needed for metabolism - diabetes. Supplying insulin helps a diabetic patient, but doesn't "cure" the disease.
It certainly seems plausible that by identifying people who lack the enzyme and either a) providing the enzyme or b) warning them of the problem, many cases could be avoided. People who lack the enzyme but abstain from alcohol seem to be okay generally, so that would seem a reasonable strategy. However, digestion of food creates alcohol, so that's an area where further study may be needed.
The other thing is, once you take care of the enzyme in an active alcoholic, you're left with just a regular drug addict - alcohol is a drug, of course. You've treated the thing that makes alcohol addicts different from other addicts, but they're still an addict. We know also that alcoholism includes some positive feedback cycles. People often have a drink when negative events happens in their lives. When they drink excessively, that causes more negative events. The alcoholic typically ends up in a cycle of dependency. Indeed, it seems that many people identified as alcoholic have only the psychological dependance and are not lacking the indicated enzyme. Enzyme therapy therefore wouldn't be expected to work in these "type II" drinkers. It may turn "type I" (enzymatic alcoholics) into type II (psychologically dependent), but that doesn't seem to be a huge win. Enzyme therapy would probably need to be combined with treatment for the psychological side as well
Looking at it another way, there are two primary issues with alcoholics. A) when they drink, they can't stop and B) they start drinking, even given the knowledge of B. Treating A doesn't fix the odd metal obsession that we see manifested in B.
Selection bias. by netsavior · 2014-06-02 02:15 · Score: 1

Phrase it this way, and you can extrapolate similarly useless information:
The striatum is smaller in men who do not attempt to hide the fact that they consume.

So, is this really about instant gratification, or is this about the fact that you can use brain type to predict the results of a selection bias survey?
LMGTFY by raymorris · 2014-06-02 02:33 · Score: 1

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=metabolis...
Please understand the isozyme is nothing more or less than a key difference between those addicted to alcohol vs those addicted to other drugs. It indicates one reason that a subject may become addicted to alcohol, and one reason that alcohol addiction differs from other drugs. Therefore it doesn't explain the totality of alcoholism - fix the enzyme and you're still left a drug addict, and involved with drug addiction. See also:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
1. Re:LMGTFY by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=metabolis... [lmgtfy.com]
  The problem with smart ass answers is that you had better be abso-fucking-lutely sure that they answer the question.
  Of course I already read up up on acetaldehyde and its metabolism, And I didn't find shit to support your claims. In fact, the first hit on your search is the wikipedia entry which has no mention of alcoholism, addiction or craving or really ANYTHING about your theory. How amazing is it that this straight-forward and obvious explanation for the majority of alcohol addiction isn't even mentioned in the wikipedia entry chemical? Or even in the first two pages of google results?
  So, as I suspected, you are just pulling this shit out of your ass.
Seriously, are there any good science websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 03:28 · Score: 0

I get that sensationalism (purportedly) sells, but I'm personally really tired of seeing crap science with bigger crap headlines. There's so much wrong with the story that it's much easier to point out what they got right, which is not a fucking thing. 64 guys? That's an insignificant number. Study? That's a strong word for what they did. They didn't have a control group. They didn't have any people who didn't watch porn, then did, or any who did watch porn then didn't. They can't even reasonably claim to have even hints of what porn watchers are like. Their porn watchers group may include people who don't actually watch porn but thought it'd be cool to say they did. Their non-watchers group may include people who watch the holy hell out of porn but are ashamed to admit it. Overall, the 'findings' in this 'study' are about as scientifically meaningful as a reading of tea leaves.
Try ctrl-F by raymorris · 2014-06-02 03:48 · Score: 1

It seems I've struck a nerve. Perhaps you've been personally affected by alcoholism or alcohol abuse in your family and have some strong feelings about it. I can relate - most men in my family have abused alcohol, and done all which that entails.
> the first hit on your search is the wikipedia entry which has no mention of alcoholism, addiction or craving or really ANYTHING about your theory. How amazing is it that this straight-forward and obvious explanation for the majority of alcohol addiction isn't even mentioned in the wikipedia entry chemical?
If you like wikipedia for an overview of the subject, the wikipedia page you mentioned actually DOES say the absence of the enzyme may be related to "a remarkably higher frequency of acute alcohol intoxication". For example, that page says:
"A remarkably higher frequency of acute alcohol intoxication among East Asians than among Caucasians could be related to the absence of a catalytically active form of the mitochondrial isozyme."
Please note what you are claiming I said is precisely the opposite of what I said. I said this is NOT an "explanation for the majority of alcohol addiction". In fact, in the post you just replied to, I linked to my other post in the thread in which I say very explicitly:
> once you take care of the enzyme in an active alcoholic, you're left with just a regular drug addict - alcohol is a drug, of course.
> You've treated the thing that makes alcohol addicts different from other addicts, but they're still an addict
Alcohol addiction is what you would have remaining AFTER you fixed the enzyme problem, or what you observe in alcoholics who do not lack the enzyme. Alcohol addiction PLUS the missing enzyme = type I alcoholism.
Note also I didn't say anything at all about "the majority of alcohol addiction". What I said was "a large percentage of alcoholics". As research progresses, we may in fact refine our definitions to distinguish between those who currently EXPERIENCE addiction to alcohol at the moment vs those who ARE, by the very nature of their genetic makeup, alcoholics. Alcoholics in this sense may not be the majority people who have experienced alcohol addiction. My somewhat-informed guess would be that roughly 30% of people whose quality of life is significantly negatively affected by their own drinking lack the enzyme. That leaves 70% of "drinkers" who are not in this class.
1. Re:Try ctrl-F by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  > It seems I've struck a nerve.
  Yeah, my bullshit detector nerve. I'm neither an alcoholic nor even really know anyone who is. But deploying the ad hominem fallacy is not helping your case.
  "A remarkably higher frequency of acute alcohol intoxication among East Asians than among Caucasians could be related to the absence of a catalytically active form of the mitochondrial isozyme."
  Which says ZERO about addiction.
  > "Therefore, it seems that alcoholism is largely caused by the lack of an important enzyme,"
  >
  > "Please note what you are claiming I said is precisely the opposite of what I said. I said this is NOT an "explanation for the majority of alcohol addiction".
  Yeah, right.
  I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE CITATION for your theories. The fact that you can't produce one, but instead want to play run-around says everything I need to know.
2. Re:Try ctrl-F by raymorris · 2014-06-02 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  > > "A remarkably higher frequency of acute alcohol intoxication"
  > Which says ZERO about addiction.
  Let me translate for you. "a high frequency of acute alcohol intoxication" means "getting shitfaced drunk all the time". If you don't think that getting shitfaced all the time has anything to do with being a drunk, well that's your issue.
Statistically irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 05:22 · Score: 0

Sixy-four people in any study is irrelevant. Call us when you get thousands.
The Great Porn Experiment by jtw78 · 2014-06-02 07:30 · Score: 1

This TEDx talk discusses other issues with porn use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Among them are depression and erectile dysfunction. One thing of note is that they differentiate between Internet porn and things like Playboy for the rapidity with which users can access new stimuli. Internet porn tends to have greater negative impact due to the rapid-fire movement between new stimuli that isn't sustainable in flesh-and-blood relationships.
At last! by viperidaenz · 2014-06-02 07:52 · Score: 1

They're found the prude section of the brain
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 08:53 · Score: 0

No wonder your so dumm.
Re:other things would be better, alcohol metabolis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-02 21:39 · Score: 0

Not to flame, but you have the alcoholism dependance on the enzyme system backwards. Alcoholics tend to have regular (ALDH1 and ALDH2 isoforms) or up-regulated (read more) ALDH2 enzyme. This decreases negative feedback due to drinking, therefore easing the path toward alcoholism (they can handle their alcohol better and drink more without as many negative physiological effects). Some people (many of Asian decent) have only one copy (ALDH1 not ALDH2) and suffer from a buildup of acetaldehyde when drinking which increases the acute toxicity of alcohol and encourages alcohol aversion.